1. The part concerning the creditor subrogation claim among the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

On May 10, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted as to the cause of the claim and entered into a transfer agreement with the Defendant and the Defendant to acquire the ownership of the ownership of 26.4 square meters of the residential countermeasure site acquired as a compensation for the relocation measures according to the development of the C district at KRW 15 million (hereinafter “instant transfer/acquisition agreement”).

On June 20, 2008, the defendant became a member of the D Association composed of persons eligible for the supply of land for livelihood countermeasures, and the D Association was sold in lots from the Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, Seoul National Housing Corporation in lots on the 344.5 square meters.

However, the Defendant did not transfer the right to sell the land to the Plaintiff, and DFV transferred the land purchased in lots to the PFV, a special purpose corporation established to promote the development project, and the PFV sold the land to the third party on June 17, 2011.

Therefore, the obligation of the defendant to transfer the right of sale to the plaintiff was impossible.

① The Plaintiff primarily cancels the transfer/acquisition agreement of this case by serving a copy of the complaint of this case on the grounds of impossibility of performance.

② Preliminaryly, the transfer/acquisition agreement of this case was concluded for the purpose of resale to the Plaintiff the right as a person subject to livelihood measures that the Defendant could not be subject to resale. It is invalid against the mandatory provisions stipulated in the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, etc.

③ Since the resale agreement between the Defendant and the implementation agency, as well as between the advanced D&C, and between the Plaintiff is null and void in violation of the mandatory law, the Plaintiff seeks payment of the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the advanced D&C as the right to preserve the claim for return of unjust enrichment on behalf of the Defendant, by subrogationing the advanced D&C as the right to preserve the claim.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 15 billion won and its delay damages, which were already paid to the plaintiff by restitution or unjust enrichment.

Judgment

The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff claim restitution following the cancellation and invalidation of the transfer contract of this case.