1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) receives KRW 86,700,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative established for a reconstruction improvement project of the size of 52,476 square meters in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). The Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on December 12, 2008 from the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and authorization for the implementation of the project on April 16, 2013, respectively.

B. The Defendant owned and occupied the real estate in the attached list in the above improvement project zone (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff Union.

C. The Plaintiff received an application for parcelling-out from May 30, 2013 to July 28, 2013, and extended the period to August 11, 2013 (hereinafter “first application for parcelling-out”); and again, received an additional application for parcelling-out from April 29, 2014 to May 16, 2014 (hereinafter “second application for parcelling-out”).

However, the defendant did not file an application for parcelling-out during each of the above applications for parcelling-out.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association but fails to file an application for parcelling-out, thereby losing the status of the Plaintiff’s member. As such, the Plaintiff exercise the right to demand sale around by applying mutatis mutandis Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act, and subsequently seeks to implement the procedure for registration of ownership transfer and transfer of the instant real estate without registration for purchase and sale on May 17, 2014, the date following the end date of the second application for parcelling-out as of August 12, 2013, which is the date following the end date of the second application for

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant lost its membership should be deemed to be “when the application for secondary application for parcelling-out is terminated,” which is the time when it could have been maintained its membership. As such, the Plaintiff is calculated in accordance with the selection of appropriate comparative cases, including development gains as of May 17, 2014.