1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) received KRW 117,900,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) simultaneously.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 21, 2007, the Plaintiff was established for the reconstruction improvement project of the size of 52,476 square meters in the Seoul Northern-gu Seoul Northern-gu, Seoul pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). The Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on December 12, 2008 from the head of Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and authorization for the change of the project on April 16, 2013, respectively.

B. The Defendant owned and occupied the instant real estate located within the said rearrangement project zone, and consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association.

C. From May 30, 2013 to July 28, 2013, the Plaintiff received an application for parcelling-out from a cooperative member, and extended the period to August 11, 2013 (hereinafter “first application for parcelling-out”); again, received an additional application for parcelling-out from April 29, 2014 to May 16, 2014 (hereinafter “second application for parcelling-out”).

However, the defendant did not file an application for parcelling-out during each of the above applications for parcelling-out.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not agree to the establishment of the Plaintiff association and lost the status of the Plaintiff’s member as the Plaintiff did not apply for sale, and the Plaintiff exercised the right to demand sale by applying mutatis mutandis Article 39 of the

Therefore, at the same time, the Defendant is obliged to pay the liquidation money to the Plaintiff at the time of receiving the settlement money from the Plaintiff, to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership in the state of no limitation of rights on the ground of sale as of August 12, 2013, which is the day following the completion date of the first application for parcelling-out, which is the day following the completion date of the second application for parcelling-out, for the sale as of May 17, 2014,

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant lost its membership should be deemed to be “when the application for the second application for parcelling-out is terminated,” which is the time when it was possible to maintain its membership. As such, the Plaintiff’s development gains are based on May 17, 2014.