1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On June 21, 2011, with respect to construction of new apartment units and construction of ancillary facilities in the A Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Site (10,475.60 square meters in the Nam-gu B project site) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (project executor) as the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, the completion of construction works under the final contract for construction works [the construction period: 27 months from the date of the actual commencement of construction; 40 billion won in the construction cost (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply)] on June 21, 201, and the Plaintiff’s settlement agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant settlement agreement”) that reduces KRW 4.7 billion from the sum of the construction contract amount to be paid by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant settlement agreement”).

The Plaintiff entered into a contract. The Plaintiff’s reduction of KRW 4.7 billion as above is because the Defendant requested that the Defendant maintain the above proportionality while “if the Plaintiff reduces KRW 4.7 billion, the estimated estimated amount of the contribution by each member subject to the instant apartment to be sold, which serves as the basis for calculating the estimated amount of the contribution by each member subject to the instant apartment to be sold = (the previous land and buildings prices of each subject to sale x the proportional ratio) = (total import of the site and buildings after the completion of the project - the total import of the site and buildings - the total project cost) / the total amount of the previous land and buildings paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff who is the contractor.” In fact, the Defendant requested that the Defendant maintain the aforementioned proportional ratio in accordance with Article 74(3) of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, which is the estimated tax amount of the instant apartment registration tax pursuant to Article 1,536,035,00 (hereinafter “estimated tax amount”).

B. In light of the above exemption portion, even if the proportion ratio of the union members would reach at least 62.38% according to the Plaintiff’s reduction of KRW 4.7 billion, the above exemption portion intentionally belonged to the Plaintiff at the time of entering into the above settlement agreement, or caused the Plaintiff’s mistake by providing the Plaintiff with output data, including the above estimated tax amount, etc., which led to the above settlement agreement.