The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether it falls under the public exchange right; and

A. It differs from whether a reconstruction association obtained approval of a management and disposal plan under Articles 33 through 45 of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Act No. 6852, Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter the same shall apply) which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 44-3 (5) of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6852, Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter the same shall apply) while implementing a reconstruction project, and accordingly, followed procedures such as public announcement of sale or disposal and disposal plan under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and subsequent procedures

Where a reconstruction association parcels out a new house or site to its members through such procedures, the rights on the old house or site shall be deemed to have been mandatorily exchanged and changed to the rights on the new house or site, regardless of the intention of the right holder.

However, in cases where a new house or site was sold to a partner without going through such procedures, the partner is merely merely to acquire the ownership of another new house or site that is different from the old house or site according to the partnership agreement or a sales contract, and it cannot be deemed that the ownership of the old house or site was mandatorily exchanged or changed to the ownership of a new house or site, and thus it cannot be deemed that the identity between the two parties is maintained.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da1132 Decided June 23, 2009). B.

For the following reasons, the lower court determined that the identity between the two cannot be deemed to have been recognized since the ownership of the previous apartment cannot be deemed to have been forcedly exchanged or altered as the ownership of the apartment of this case.

(1) The Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is prescribed in the process of destroying and reconstructing the apartment of this case.