The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion did not have the right to purchase an apartment and commercial building for its members under the Plaintiff’s Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant project”) pursuant to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (hereinafter “instant project”), but the Defendant, in collusion with the head of the partnership B at the time, caused the damage of KRW 735,646,00 in total to the Plaintiff after having sold each of the two houses for the partnership members and the two houses for the partnership members (=370,646,000 in difference between the apartment and the general apartment for the union members).

Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 735,646,00 as damages for tort and damages for delay.

2. In full view of the overall purport of each statement and pleading by Gap's evidence Nos. 10 through 13 (the number of paper numbers is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the gift on April 22, 2005 with respect to the land and building located in the business area of this case from Seomun-gu Seoul E, Seomun-gu, Seoul, 9m2 located in the business area of this case, and its ground, and the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 13, 2009 by selling the apartment Nos. 10 to 13 as the plaintiff's member, and completed the registration of ownership preservation on May 13, 2009, instead of giving up the right to sell the commercial building Nos. 10 and received approximately KRW 265 million from the defendant.

However, evidence submitted by the plaintiff, such as evidence Nos. 7, 8, and 9, is hard to find that the defendant had no legitimate sales qualification under the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments, which was enforced at the time when the defendant acquired the above apartment and commercial buildings, and there is no other evidence to find otherwise

The plaintiff did not specifically assert and prove that the defendant had no legitimate qualification for sale for any reason in accordance with the above Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance, and according to the facts stated above.