1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff and the Defendant respectively.

1. The facts below the disposition of this case do not conflict between the parties, or are acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole in each of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 14 (including serial numbers).

[1] In accordance with the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments around June 2009, the Mayor of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City formulated a rearrangement plan with the area of 39,313 square meters in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City as "A housing redevelopment improvement zone" and designated and publicly announced the improvement zone on July 20, 209.

On December 16, 2009, the Defendant approved the establishment of an association for the implementation of the above rearrangement project to the Plaintiff.

On August 22, 2011, the Defendant approved the implementation plan for the above improvement project to the Plaintiff, and at the time, the area of the above improvement zone increased to 148.50 square meters by 39,461.50 square meters.

On November 7, 2011, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff to revise the implementation plan for the said rearrangement project (a modification to any minor matter), and at the time, did not change the area of the said rearrangement zone 39,461.50 square meters.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff carried out a housing redevelopment improvement project (hereinafter “the instant rearrangement project”) that constructs apartment housing (multi-family housing) 922 households in the said rearrangement zone (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”).

[2] Until June 2018, the Plaintiff sold 317 households among 922 households of multi-family housing (multi-family housing) constructed by implementing the instant improvement project to the members of the association (hereinafter “members’ share”) and sold 50 households to the general public (hereinafter “general unit ownership”), 47 households, and 8 households were leased houses and reserved land.

In the above 550 households, 219 households, which were originally the Plaintiff’s members, were the cash liquidation agent, sold to the general public without selling it to the members (hereinafter “cash liquidation”).

On October 2, 2018, the Defendant paid KRW 1,596,632,00 to the Plaintiff, as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Securing, etc. of School Sites.