1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a partnership established to implement a housing redevelopment project (hereinafter “instant project”) in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, and the Defendant is a person who owned land in the said project implementation district.

B. (1) The Plaintiff was authorized to implement the instant project on November 12, 2004 by the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and received the authorization of the project implementation on February 27, 2007, from the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government. (2) The Defendant, as a purchaser under the above management and disposal plan, was sold in lots the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Apartment 104 Dong 1502 (hereinafter “instant building”).

3) On December 14, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained the authorization of the completion of the above apartment project from the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office, and obtained the authorization of the modification of the management and disposal plan of the instant apartment project on June 29, 2011. On June 30, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a transfer notification of the same content as the authorization of the modification of the management and disposal plan. (C) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant pursuant to Article 57(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) with the Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap23775, supra, Article 57(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of the purchase price (251,848,536 won) equivalent to the difference between the sale price (402,400,000 won) of the instant building (400 won).

In the above litigation procedure, the defendant asserted that he became a person subject to cash settlement because he did not file an application for parcelling-out, and filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff as Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap23782 against the plaintiff, claiming the payment of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the land owned by the defendant.

2. The Seoul Administrative Court declared that the plaintiff's main claim was accepted in the above case and that the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.