1. Among the judgment of the court of first instance, the rehabilitation debtor joint construction company, which is the litigation taking over the defendant Dong Branch construction company.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except for the part added to the basic facts of the judgment of the court of first instance and the part concerning the claim against the defendant administrator, with the exception of the part concerning the plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant CHousing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is accepted by

2. The portion added to the basic facts

A. On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff reported “the total amount of KRW 206,880,000 of the principal and interest of KRW 36,729,870 calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from July 1, 2011 to the date prior to the commencement decision of rehabilitation” as the claim to return the sale price under the above rehabilitation procedure, and the Defendant administrator raised an objection thereto.

B. On November 4, 2015, the administrator of the Dong Construction of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Family Branch was changed from the former B to G on November 4, 2015 during the proceeding of this Court, and G was deemed as the custodian of the Dong Construction of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Family Branch, thereby taking over the previous Defendant’

(B) From this point, the above final litigant is the Defendant’s custodian. 3. On the claim against the Defendant’s custodian, the part rejecting the claim against the Defendant’s custodian

A. Of the 7th judgment of the court of first instance, the 9th judgment in the 7th judgment, '2th judgment' below.

The paragraph shall be the same as this paragraph.

B. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff paid KRW 206,880,000 out of the sales price of KRW 517,200,000 until February 2, 2010.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the above evidence: (a) Dongbu Construction demanded the Plaintiff to pay the sales price, and (b) on June 21, 2012, notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the instant sales contract on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay the unpaid sales price by October 31, 201, which is the due date for the payment of the remainder, and (c) deducted the penalty to be borne by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 9(1) and (3) of the instant sales contract, which is the penalty to be borne by the Plaintiff, equivalent to 517,20,000 won of the total sales price of KRW 51,720,00,000, from among the total sales price of KRW 206,80,000.