1. The defendant shall pay 141,341,200 won to the plaintiffs.

2. All remaining claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed.

3...

Basic Facts

The defendant is a housing reconstruction project partnership which has obtained approval to establish an association from an administrative agency for the purpose of removing existing buildings on the ground of Pyeongtaek-si D and constructing multi-family housing on that ground (hereinafter referred to as the "instant rearrangement project").

The Plaintiffs are co-owners who own 1/2 each of 143 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) located in Pyeongtaek-si E located in the instant rearrangement project zone, and did not consent to the establishment of the Defendant Association.

Since the plaintiffs' assertion and the defendant's assertion that the plaintiffs' claim were made against the plaintiffs under Article 39 (1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, a sales contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant was established to sell the land

Although the land of this case is a land category transfer, and the actual use of the land is a site for the construction of a building on that land, so the market price should be calculated as a site containing development gains, and this is about 443,900 won per square meter, the officially announced land price of this case, which is about 3.5 times.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs 22,171,950 won (143 square meters x 443,900 won x 3.5 times) and delay damages.

It is as stated in the relevant statutes.

Judgment

If a project implementer established a sales contract for the instant land exercises a right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act for a person who does not participate in a housing reconstruction project, the sales contract for the instant land or buildings of a person who does not participate in a housing reconstruction project is established at the same time as an expression of intent to exercise the right to demand sale has reached (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da21549, 2156, 21563, Mar. 26, 2009). The fact that the Defendant exercised the right to demand sale of the instant land against the Plaintiffs on June 2, 2016, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case.