1. The Defendant received KRW 1,077,000,000 from the Plaintiff at the same time, and simultaneously received from the Plaintiff:

(a)each entry in the separate sheet;

1. The following facts of recognition shall be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, as set out in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number for which the number has been set out):

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), which is established for a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project of 26,302 square meters in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Defendant is the Plaintiff’s member as the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet in the said project implementation district (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”).

B. The Plaintiff: (a) obtained authorization to establish an association on August 11, 2010 from the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) obtained authorization to implement a project on October 26, 2012 from the head of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; and (c) received an application for parcelling-out from the members to December 23, 2013 through notification and announcement procedures, such as the period of application for parcelling-out under Article 46(1) of the Urban Improvement Act; and (d) received an application for parcelling-out from November 14, 201

C. The Plaintiff exercised the right to demand sale of each real estate of this case by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case on the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. According to the fact that the defendant's transfer registration of ownership and delivery obligations for the real estate of this case are recognized, the defendant did not apply for parcelling-out within the above period of application for parcelling-out, so it constitutes a person subject to cash settlement under Article 47 of the Urban

A person subject to cash settlement has lost the status of a person subject to cash settlement because he/she has lost the status of a person subject to cash settlement due to reasons such as not applying for parcelling-out and has the status as a person subject to withdrawal from the partnership. Therefore, a reconstruction association shall be deemed to be able to file a claim for registration of ownership transfer of real estate in a rearrangement zone against a person subject to cash settlement by applying Article 39 of the same Act mutatis mutandis. In such cases