1. Paragraph 2 of the order of the first instance judgment, including the plaintiff's claim extended by this court, is as follows.

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the existence of the obligation and the implementation of the registration procedure against the Defendant. The first instance court rejected the claim for confirmation on the ground that the part of the claim for confirmation was accepted, and that the claim for performance is unlawful.

In this regard, the defendant appealed to the part of the confirmation claim, and thereafter the plaintiff filed an incidental appeal only to the part of the confirmation claim, so this court's judgment is limited to the part of the confirmation claim.

2. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the case where “356,818,800 won” in Part 7 of the third court’s judgment is “356,818,000 won,” and this part of this Court’s reasoning is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(hereinafter the terms used in this section are the same as the judgment of the first instance). 3. Determination

A. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the obligation to pay the liquidation amount are as follows: (a) the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance other than using the “2010Da190204” in the fourth sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance as “2010Da19204”.

Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. If a project implementer exercises a right to demand sale under the Urban Improvement Act for a person who does not participate in a housing reconstruction project, the scope of the obligation to pay liquidation money is not the transaction price under the condition that the land or building should be implemented rather than the transaction price under the condition that the land or building should be removed due to the deterioration of the land or building at the time of the exercise of the right to demand sale, and the sale contract is established based on the market price for the land or building of the person who does not participate in the housing reconstruction project.