The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Cheongju District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The reasoning of the lower judgment reveals the following facts.

The Plaintiff received the application for parcelling-out from April 20 to May 20, 2016 when publicly announcing the application for parcelling-out in relation to a housing redevelopment improvement project in a zone A (hereinafter referred to as “instant improvement project”) on April 15, 2016, as a housing redevelopment project partnership with approximately KRW 79,035,200 square meters as a project implementation district in Cheongju-si.

B. The Defendants submitted an application for parcelling-out to the Plaintiff within the period of application for parcelling-out as the owner or possessor of each real estate of this case.

C. On January 16, 2017, the Plaintiff received an administrative disposition plan from the Cheongju Mayor, and the Cheongju Mayor publicly notified it on January 20, 2017.

2.(a)

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ defense of violation of the good faith principle and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff did not proceed with the procedures for concluding a sales contract as stipulated by the articles of incorporation, which is less than a reasonable period from the time of the approval plan for the management and disposal plan; and (b) the Defendants did not have the opportunity to become a cash clearing agent; and (c) the Defendants

B. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept in light of the following circumstances revealed by the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record.

(1) In order to deny the exercise of rights against the other party in legal relations on the ground that it violates the good faith principle, it is reasonable that the other party provided good faith to the other party or had good faith from an objective point of view, and the exercise of rights against such other party’s good faith has to reach such an irrecoverable level in light of the concept of justice.

(2) Article 44 of the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da3802, Dec. 10, 1991).