1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the defendant adds a judgment on the argument newly made in the court of first instance, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendant asserts that the purchase and sale price following the exercise of the right to demand sale should include development gains, and the development gains should be proportional rates (investment return/investment amount) decided by the board of representatives at the stage of confirmation of the management and disposal plan prepared by the Plaintiff. As such, the sale price should be 176,639,100 won (i.e., market price appraisal of the first instance court 160,581,00 won x 110%).

If a project implementer exercises a right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents against a person who does not participate in a housing reconstruction project, the sale contract for the land or building of the person who does not participate in the housing reconstruction project has been established at the same time at the market price. The market price is the objective market price of the land or building at the time when the right to demand sale has been exercised, which includes the price of the land or building appraised on the condition that the housing reconstruction project is implemented rather than the market price on the condition that the land or building is to be removed due to aging or the current situation where the housing reconstruction project has not been implemented, i.e., the

(Supreme Court Decision 208Da21549, 21556, 21563 Decided March 26, 2009). In light of the above legal doctrine, in calculating the price including development gains, the development gains cannot be deemed to necessarily be based on the proportion (investment return/investment amount) decided by the board of representatives at the stage of confirmation of the management and disposal plan prepared by the Plaintiff, a project implementer, and on the other hand, the development gains should not be determined.