1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts were determined by the Defendant around 2005 as KRW 3,462,00 per square meter and awarded a contract for new construction works, such as apartment buildings to be constructed by C Housing Redevelopment Association (hereinafter the redevelopment association in this case) and by the redevelopment association in this case.

D, a member of the redevelopment association of this case, purchased the apartment of this case newly built by the defendant under the above contract, and completed registration of initial ownership on September 14, 2009.

In the voluntary auction procedure of Seoul Western District Court, the Plaintiff received a successful bid for the apartment of this case and paid the price in full on August 26, 2014.

From July 3, 2008, the completion date of the apartment of this case, the Defendant asserted a lien based on the claim for the return of construction price against the redevelopment association of this case and possessed the apartment of this case.

Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, Eul 1, 9 through 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s claim for the construction price against the redevelopment association of this case expired as a repayment, or expired as of July 3, 201, when three years have elapsed since the completion date of the instant apartment, on or after July 3, 2011. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff and pay unjust enrichment or damages equivalent to the rent. 2) The Defendant’s claim for the construction price against the redevelopment association of this case’s assertion was not yet fully repaid, and the extinctive prescription was interrupted due to partial repayment and the confirmation of payment order.

In addition, since the redevelopment association acquired the shares of the redevelopment association of this case against D, the former owner of the apartment of this case, separate from the claim for construction price against the redevelopment association of this case, it can exercise the lien on this ground.

B. In full view of whether the claim for construction price against the redevelopment association of this case was extinguished or not as to the redevelopment association of this case, the defendant's apartment complex of this case as to the purport of the whole pleadings as to whether the claim for construction price was extinguished or not.