The judgment below

The part against Defendant D is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

Defendant B, .

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Claim on the calculation of the purchase price for the land owned by Defendant D

(a) A project undertaker who intends to implement a housing construction project may request the owner of a site which has failed to secure a title to use among the housing construction sites to sell the relevant site at the market price;

Article 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings shall apply mutatis mutandis to a sale claim.

(Article 22 of the Housing Act). Here, the market price is the objective transaction price at the time when the right to request sale is exercised, which includes the price assessed on the premise that the housing construction project is being implemented, i.e. the development gains anticipated to be incurred

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da21549, 21556, 21563 Decided March 26, 2009, etc.) B.

(1) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record of the instant case, the appraiser of the first instance assessed the market price of the instant third real estate in the following manner, and the lower court adopted such appraisal result and calculated the sales price for the instant third real estate.

The third real estate of this case is an irregular land whose land category is a ditch and its status is a road.

In comparison with the land of Kimhae-si, a comparative standard place, street conditions are superior to the comparative standard place, while the access conditions, environmental conditions and other conditions are similar, but the land conditions (area, form, etc.) are 0.65 and administrative conditions (land category, etc.) are 0.5.

The unit price shall be determined by taking into account the gap rate of individual factors (0.335) and the correction of other factors.

(2) However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept.

In light of the above legal principles, the land category of the third real estate in this case is a ditch, and even if the present status is a road, so long as the housing construction project promoted by the Plaintiff becomes a part of the site of multi-family housing, the market price should be assessed equally as the neighboring site market price in the case where the housing construction project