1. The defendant received KRW 55,000,000 from the plaintiff at the same time, and simultaneously received from the plaintiff:

(a) real estate listed in the annex;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a reconstruction association established for the purpose of constructing a new apartment on a parcel of 16,100.74 square meters, other than Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and was publicly notified by the head of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Bupyeong-gu of the management and disposal plan for a reconstruction project on December 30, 2015.

B. The Defendant was the Plaintiff’s member who owned the real estate in the said housing reconstruction improvement project zone (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and did not apply for parcelling-out by July 19, 2012, which is the final date for application for parcelling-out.

C. As of July 20, 2012, the market price of the instant real estate is KRW 55,00,000.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, the result of appraiser D's market price appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay 5,00,000 won for liquidation from the plaintiff pursuant to Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents to the plaintiff at the same time when he is paid 5,00,000 won for the real estate in this case to the plaintiff on July 20, 2012, the day following the deadline for application for

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s appraisal and assessment did not reflect the development gains in the calculation of the price, and the appraisal and assessment should be conducted by selecting and appraising the transaction cases at the time near the point of time of the appraisal standard, but at the time of the appraisal and assessment in 201, there was an error in the time adjustment, etc.

B. As long as the method of appraisal, etc. is contrary to the empirical rule or unreasonable, the result of appraisal by the judgment appraiser must be respected unless there exists a significant error.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da93790 Decided November 29, 2012, etc.). The Plaintiff applied for the appraisal of the market price including development gains from a reconstruction project at the time of applying for the market price appraisal of the instant real estate, and the appraiser also applied the transaction comparison method.