1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 8, 2008, pursuant to Article 16 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Seodaemun-gu, and completed the establishment registration on November 6, 2008. On January 26, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Seodaemun-gu, Seoul Seo-gu, Seoul, as a project implementation district for the improvement of Seodaemun-gu, and on March 23, 2012, determined the expiration date of the application for parcelling-out and announced the application for parcelling-out on May 17, 2012.

B. The defendant is the owner of the real estate listed in the attached list in the plaintiff's project implementation district (hereinafter "the real estate of this case"), and the association member agreed to the rebuilding resolution on the establishment of the plaintiff's association, but did not file an application for parcelling-out by the expiration date of

C. Articles 42 and 43 of the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation provide that where a partner of the association fails to apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out, the company is excluded from the object of parcelling-out under an authorized management and disposal plan, the company’s structures or other rights shall be liquidated in cash.

The market value of the instant real estate as of May 18, 2012 is KRW 185,200,000.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1-3 (including virtual number), appraiser D's market price appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The defendant, which caused the claim, has lost his status as a partner because he did not file an application for parcelling-out by the expiration date of the period for application for parcelling-out and became a person subject to cash liquidation, and the plaintiff exercises the right to claim a sale under Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case against the defendant. The defendant is paid 16,910,177 won, which is the remainder after deducting the amount equivalent to the defendant's share, out of the maintenance project cost incurred during the period in which the defendant was holding his status as a partner, from the plaintiff as the liquidation money.