1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. 14 residents including W (hereinafter “the initial owner of the instant building”) agreed on the share of the instant site to the 18 household units of the previous Nitcogn house (hereinafter “former Nitcogn house”) on the ground of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the instant site”) with the ownership ratio of 82.5/1,155, respectively. On February 17, 1990, the said Nitcogn house was owned by each of 82.5/1,155, and the 14 residents, including W (hereinafter “the instant initial owner of the instant building”) to remove the previous Nitcogn house and construct the new apartment house (hereinafter “the instant apartment house”) on the 3rd and 18 household units of the instant building (the 3rd floor structure).

B. W agreed on March 15, 190 to conclude a construction contract with X, which is a constructor, with the authority delegated by the initial owner of the instant apartment house, with respect to the conclusion of the construction contract. At the time of completion, W agreed to undertake the construction work at the expense of X, but the four households out of the third floor after completion shall be calculated as KRW 120 million per household and the construction cost shall be paid in lieu of the instant apartment house, and X shall be financed in 12,50,000 per household, if any, at the expense of the instant apartment house.

C. Around April 1990, X completed the instant tenement on or around October 12 of the same year after obtaining permission for construction on or around April 1990 in the name of the initial owner of the instant building, and the Plaintiff completed the instant apartment house on or around October 19 of the same year.

8. The instant apartment house 305, which was received from X as a substitute in accordance with the said contract, was purchased with the price of KRW 175,000,000,000. At the time, the co-ownership column of the site, which is the subject matter of sale, was the blank.

The apartment house of this case was not approved by the competent authority due to disputes between the plaintiff and the occupants of a multi-story structure, including the plaintiff, regarding the ratio of the right to a site between the occupants of a multi-story structure and the occupants of a multi-story structure.

E. The Defendant on July 27, 201.