1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment, except for the addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence

The relevant statutes related to this case are as shown in attached Form 2.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion 1), the first instance court’s abbreviation, Article 3 of the Convention on Real Estate, is used as it is. The Defendant additionally pays 50% of the development gains accrued from the instant project, in addition to the project cost of the instant case, to the Plaintiff. Moreover, the instant project created development gains, and additional costs incurred in arterial facilities directly necessary for the water completion zone and the new zone, such as soundproof facilities around the new zone. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to transfer to the Plaintiff the ownership of real estate equivalent to KRW 42,525,687,520, equivalent to KRW 50% of the development gains from the instant project (the Plaintiff is asserting that the obligation to transfer the ownership of real estate listed in the attached list and the obligation to transfer the ownership of other real estate was omitted, and exercises the right to claim the relevant amount.

2) Article 3 of the Convention provides that the Defendant shall bear the additional project cost within the limit of 50% of the development gains in the event that the cost exceeding the project cost of the instant case is incurred in the direct construction of the instant road that the Plaintiff is obligated to construct.

However, the Plaintiff did not use the entire project cost of the instant road by private investment enterprises, and did not use the entire project cost of the instant road, and did not have any arterial facilities necessary for the completion district and the New District, and the Defendant did not have the obligation

B. Whether the Defendant bears additional project costs pursuant to Article 3 of the instant Convention.