1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the first preliminary claim are dismissed, respectively.

2. The defendant shall be KRW 4,280,133,000 from the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project association established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) to implement the housing reconstruction improvement project (hereinafter “the instant improvement project”) of the third apartment of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant apartment”) regardless of the 32-8 circulationdong in Seocho-gu, Seoul.

B. On July 15, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained authorization to establish an association from the head of Seocho-gu, and completed the registration of incorporation on July 18, 2013.

C. On October 20, 197, the Defendant acquired the ownership of 32-7 Park 471.9 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) located within the instant rearrangement project zone, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul. It has been owned until now.

The defendant constructed the apartment house of this case with the land of 136 and 36 lots, Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, as the business site before replotting, and sold it to the general public.

The instant land was included in the instant project site with land 136, Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government before replotting.

On the other hand, on April 22, 1992, the above 37 lots of land was substituted and the rearrangement was completed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In light of the fact that the location of the apartment of this case was 130 and 36 lots, Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, before the land substitution, the land of this case was planned as part of the apartment complex of this case at the time of the new construction of the apartment of this case.

Although the Defendant, as the subject of the instant apartment construction project, should have transferred the ownership of the instant land to the buyer at the time of sale, he did not complete such procedures.

Ultimately, the instant land is deemed to be owned by the sectional owners of the instant apartment, so the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant as to the instant land.