1. The plaintiff's primary claim shall be dismissed.

2. As to the Plaintiff’s land substitution determination indicated in the attached list.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an association established by the former Land Readjustment Project Act (repealed by Act No. 6252, Jul. 1, 2000; hereinafter the same) and was the implementer of the land readjustment project in which the Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government is the enforcement district of the land readjustment project (hereinafter “instant project”). On October 4, 201, the Defendant obtained business authorization from Incheon Metropolitan City and publicly announced the land substitution disposition regarding the instant project on October 24, 201.

B. The land indicated in the Plaintiff’s annexed list “previous land” (hereinafter “previous land”) was replaced by the land indicated in the “land for confirmation of land substitution” column indicated in the annexed list according to the above disposition of replotting (hereinafter “land after the instant land substitution”). Accordingly, the land substitution liquidation amount was imposed.

On January 15, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a commission to the competent registry office for registration of the land following the instant replotting disposition.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant application”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. On August 24, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant, upon the submission of the instant reply, refused to entrust the registration to the Plaintiff on August 24, 2015, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition rejecting the request for registration of substitute substitution made by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on August 24, 2015. However, the instant reply is merely a reply to the purport that, when the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of illegality of the request for registration of substitute substitution, the Defendant did not entrust the registration in accordance with the business regulations regarding the land substitution and rearrangement project, and upon the completion of the Plaintiff’s obligation, the instant reply cannot be deemed as a disposition rejecting the request for registration of substitute call.

Therefore, this part of the claim is unlawful because there is no disposition subject to appeal litigation.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The parties’ assertion 1.