1. The defendant shall receive KRW 1,209,396,380 from the plaintiff, and at the same time, each of the attached list to the plaintiff.

Facts of recognition

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction project partnership established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), obtained authorization for establishment on September 17, 2013, and completed the registration of incorporation on October 10, 2013, in order to implement the housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”) whose project implementation district is 19,246 square meters in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant project implementation district”).

On April 14, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for establishing an association.

B. The Defendant consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff as the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet located in the instant project zone (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”).

C. On February 17, 2017, the Plaintiff publicly announced the period for application for parcelling-out to the members for parcelling-out as determined from February 17, 2017 to March 28, 2017, and from March 29, 2017 to April 17, 2017.

The defendant did not apply for parcelling-out to the plaintiff until April 17, 2017, which is the expiration date of the above period for application for parcelling-out.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including a branch number), Gap evidence 3-1 through 5, Gap evidence 7-1-1, and Gap evidence 7-1, and a reconstruction association which is a project implementer under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply) does not, in principle, have the right to expropriate real estate in a rearrangement zone (Article 38 of the same Act), and Article 39 of the same Act does not directly apply to a person subject to cash liquidation who was a member of the association, who consented to the establishment of the association.

However, a person subject to cash settlement is disqualified as a member due to the loss of the status of the person subject to parcelling-out due to reasons such as not applying for parcelling-out.