1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

2. The defendant shall receive KRW 874,193,450 from the plaintiff at the same time.

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the part of the purchase price of the instant real estate from Part 5 to Part 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance (2) is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the part in which “the purchase price of the instant real estate” was recorded, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(2) If a project implementer exercises a right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents against a person who does not participate in a housing reconstruction project, the sale contract is established based on the market price of the land or building of the person who does not participate in the housing reconstruction project at the same time. The market price is the objective market price of the land or building at the time when the right to demand sale was exercised, under the premise that the land or building will be removed due to aging or the current status where the housing reconstruction project is not implemented, rather than the market price under the premise that the housing reconstruction project is implemented (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da21549, 2156, 2156, 21563, Mar. 26, 2009; 2000Da47475, Apr. 27, 2007; 2007Da47475, Apr. 19, 2007).