Large 2 Housing Reconstruction Project Association (Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

November 17, 2009

1. The defendant shall receive KRW 502,800,000 from the plaintiff and, at the same time, shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on September 23, 2008 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet to the plaintiff, and shall order the above real estate.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. A part of Lighting under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

(1) The Plaintiff is an association organized for the purpose of the reconstruction project (hereinafter “the reconstruction project of this case”) of gold-free houses, mountain-free houses, communication-based houses, and detached houses located in the land located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the instant reconstruction site”).

(2) The Defendant owns each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) within the instant reconstruction site.

B. The Plaintiff’s establishment history

(1) According to Article 2 subparagraph 9(b) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9444, Jan. 30, 2009; hereinafter “Do Government Act”), housing reconstruction projects include ① the owners of buildings and their appurtenant land located in a rearrangement zone, ② the owners of houses and their appurtenant land located in a zone other than a rearrangement zone, and owners of appurtenant facilities, welfare facilities, and their appurtenant land as owners of lands, etc.

(2) The Plaintiff’s inaugural general meeting was held at the office of the promotion committee on December 19, 2004. Of 86 members, 56 of the 86 members attended to decide on the establishment of the association and the improvement project, the election of the head of the association and the election of the executives, the approval of the articles of association, etc.

(3) On February 15, 2005, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of the Housing Reconstruction Project Association from the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office.

(4) As the number of persons who agreed to the reconstruction project of this case after obtaining authorization to establish the association is increased and the project site is expanded, the Plaintiff finally became 96 members among the 108 owners of land, etc. and became 11,252 square meters in total with the reconstruction site of this case after obtaining authorization to establish the association.

(5) After November 8, 2007, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice No. 2007-410 on Nov. 8, 2007, “designation of the 2nd house reconstruction rearrangement zone and preparation of topographic drawings” was publicly announced and the rearrangement zone was designated. The entire reconstruction site of this case, including the real estate owned by the Defendant, was designated as the rearrangement zone.

(6) The Plaintiff received project implementation authorization from the Yeongdeungpo-gu Office on February 15, 2008, and held a management and disposal general meeting on November 8, 2008, and resolved on the case of approval of the management and disposal plan as the case of subparagraph 2. On May 18, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office on the management and disposal plan.

(c) The main provisions of the Do Administration Act, which prescribe the application for parcelling-out by the owners of lands, etc. and the cash settlement for the owners of lands, etc. who failed to apply for parcelling

(1) Article 46 of the Do administration Act: ① A project implementer shall notify the owners of lands, etc. of the outlined charges, the period for application for parcelling-out, and other matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree within 21 days from the date of public announcement of the authorization for project implementation under Article 28 (4) (in the case of a housing reconstruction project, the date of concluding a contract by selecting a contractor under Article 11), and publicly notify the details of lands or structures subject to parcelling-out, etc. in a daily newspaper published in the relevant area as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. In this case, the period for application for parcelling-out shall be between 30 days and 60 days from the date of notification of the application for parcelling-out: Provided, That where the project implementer deems that there is no difficulty in formulating a management and disposal plan

(2) The owners of lands, etc. who intend to parcel out a site or structure shall apply for parcelling-out to the project implementer under the methods and procedures prescribed by Presidential Decree within the period for application for parcelling-out under paragraph (1).

(2) Article 47 subparagraph 1 of the Do administration Act: The project implementer shall liquidate the land, buildings or other rights in cash within 150 days from the date of falling under the application for parcelling-out, where the owners of land, etc. are those who have failed to apply for parcelling-out.

(3) Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the Do Government Act: Where a project implementer is liquidated in cash for the land, buildings and other rights of the owners of land, etc. pursuant to Article 47 of the Act, the liquidation amount shall be computed through consultation between the project implementer and the owners of land, etc. In this case, it may be consulted on the basis of the amount calculated by taking an arithmetic mean of the values appraised by at least two appraisal business operators

D. In accordance with Article 46 of the Do administration Act and Articles 41 and 42 of the Plaintiff’s association’s articles of association, the Plaintiff issued a public notice of sale in lots and an instruction for application for parcelling-out and received applications for parcelling-out. The period for the first application for parcelling-out was from August 11, 2008 to September 10, and the period for the second application for parcelling-out was from September 13, 2008 to September 22, 2008.

E. The defendant did not file an application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out, and on January 13, 2009, the plaintiff notified the defendant of a defect in cash settlement agreement, and notified the defendant of February 2, 2009 again.

F. On February 9, 2009, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of a written agreement on cash settlement of KRW 1.39 billion, but notified the Plaintiff that the amount presented by the Defendant is much different from the market price.

G. On February 4, 2009, the Plaintiff requested the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office to recommend an appraiser, and as a result, requested two appraisal businesses recommended by the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office to conduct an appraisal, the market price of the instant real estate owned by the Defendant was calculated as KRW 458,645,480.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute; evidence No. 1, 2, 2, 3-1 through 3, 4, 5-1 through 4, 5-1, 2, 7-7-1, 2, 8, 10-1, 2, 22, 11, 15 through 19, 20-1, 21-1, 22, 23-1, 24-1, 26-1, 26-1, 27-1, 27-2, 27-2, and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

In accordance with Article 47 subparagraph 1 and subparagraph 2 of the Do Rearrangement Act, when the owner of land, etc. fails to apply for a parcelling-out or withdraws the application for a parcelling-out, the project implementer shall liquidate the land, buildings, or other rights in cash within 150 days from the date of falling under the application for a parcelling-out or withdrawal of the application for a parcelling-out pursuant to the procedures prescribed by Presidential Decree. Here, when an obligation to pay the liquidation money arises for the owner of land, etc. who failed to apply for a parcelling-out or has withdrawn the application for a parcelling-out before the expiration of the period for the application for a parcelling-out, the "date after the expiration of the period for the parcelling-out application" as prescribed by Article 46 of the same Act is the following day of the project implementer under Article 46 of the same Act, and when the project implementer bears the duty to pay the liquidation money to the owner of land, etc. who failed to apply for a parcelling-out or withdrawn the application for a parcelling-out under Article 47 of the same Act, the owner of land, etc. is in principle in the simultaneous implementation relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 208Da808

According to the above facts, on September 23, 2008, the day when the plaintiff was obligated to pay liquidation money to the defendant. On September 23, 2008, the market price of trees planted in the real estate of this case as of September 23, 2008 is no dispute between the parties. In addition, according to the appraiser's appraisal as of September 23, 2008, the market price of the real estate of this case, including development gains from reconstruction as of September 23, 2008, including development gains from reconstruction as of September 23, 2008, can be recognized that the market price of the real estate of this case was 499,80,000 won (= real estate 49,800,000 won + 3,0000 won + 3,000,0000 won for the real estate of this case as of September 23, 2008.

As to this, the defendant's consent is obtained from the representative of the plaintiff on the condition that he compensates for the price equivalent to two bonds, and the market price of the real estate of this case at the time of receiving the application for parcelling-out is about KRW 16 million per square day or KRW 17 million per square day, and the amount of cash liquidation presented by the plaintiff is excessive. However, the plaintiff's representative agreed to the defendant to compensate for the amount equivalent to two bonds, or there is no evidence to prove that the market price of the real estate of this case is about KRW 16 million per square day or KRW 17 million per square day as of September 23, 2008, or that the market price of the real estate of this case is about KRW 16 million or KRW 17 million per square day, the above argument of the defendant is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted for all reasons.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)