1. The defendant's sales contract between the Gyeonggi-do Si construction company and the plaintiff regarding real estate stated in the attached list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Korea Land and Housing Corporation and the Gyeonggi-do Si Corporation jointly carried out the D District Development Project (hereinafter “instant Development Project”) for Pyeongtaek-si C, and the housing owned by the Defendant was included in the project area.

B. On February 9, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant for the right to sell the housing site (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with respect to the housing site to be supplied when the Defendant is selected as a person eligible for supply of the said housing site from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation in the future.

On the same day, the Plaintiff paid the above purchase price to the Defendant.

C. Around January 2015, the Defendant was selected as a person eligible for supply of migrants’ housing site and concluded a sales contract with the Gyeonggi-do Si Corporation on May 24, 2016 on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 12, Eul evidence 5 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, the right to sell housing construction sites supplied according to the execution of relocation measures may be resold with the consent of the project implementer. However, even if the Gyeonggi-do Urban Construction Project, which is the project implementer, does not consent to the instant sales contract, the said contract is in a state of dynamic invalidation. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for applying for resale consent so that it can obtain

B. The Defendant’s argument 1 of this case was that the Defendant was selected as a person subject to supply of a re-resident’s housing site and concluded before the right to sell the housing site was created, and at that time, it was impossible to resell the right to sell the housing site.