Seoul District Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (Attorney Don-do et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

October 17, 2008

Busan District Court Decision 2007Gadan83003 Decided June 24, 2008

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached Form.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established for the purpose of implementing a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project in Zone 2 of Zone 2 of Zone 2 of Zone 2 of Zone 1 Seoul Special Metropolitan City with the total area of 9,423 square meters, Dong-dong, Busan Special Metropolitan City.

B. On May 10, 2004, the Plaintiff obtained authorization to establish the association from the head of the Si/Gu of Busan on March 7, 2006, and obtained authorization for the implementation of the housing redevelopment project on March 7, 2006. On April 5, 2007, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the management and disposal plan (hereinafter “the instant management and disposal plan”) pursuant to Article 49(2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Do Government Act”). The head of the Si/Gu of Busan announced the above management and disposal plan on April 11, 2007 pursuant to Article 49(3) of the Do Government Act.

C. The Defendant, as the owner of the pertinent real estate indicated in the attached Form in the project implementation district (hereinafter “instant real estate”), occupies the said real estate as an owner of the said real estate.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5-8, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff asserts that the withdrawal of the application for parcelling-out by the defendant is not legitimate, and even if the defendant's withdrawal of the application for parcelling-out is lawful and is subject to cash liquidation, if the management and disposal plan is approved and announced uniformly pursuant to Article 49 (6) of the Do Administration Act, the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc. of the previous land or structure, shall not use or profit from the previous land or structure until the date of the public announcement of relocation under Article 54 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, and the project implementer may use or benefit from the previous land or structure. As the management and disposal plan was announced on April 11, 2007, the defendant whose use or profit has been suspended, is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff who acquired

(2) As to the above, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable.

(A) The assertion that the management and disposal plan and the authorization are invalid respectively.

1) Article 46(1) of the Do administration Act provides that the project implementer shall notify the owners of land, etc. of the details of the outlined charges, the period for application for parcelling-out, and other matters as prescribed by the Presidential Decree within 21 days from the date the project implementation authorization is publicly notified, and such provision is a mandatory provision.

2) However, the Plaintiff completed the application for parcelling-out without notifying at all of the outlined particulars of the charges, which are the most important factor to determine whether to apply for parcelling-out after obtaining authorization for project implementation. The application for parcelling-out, which the Plaintiff received from the Defendant, violates Article 46 of the Do administration and administration plan established based on the application for parcelling-out for invalidation, shall also be null and void.

3) In addition, Article 48(1)3 and 5 of the Do Administration Act provides that the project implementer shall obtain authorization after formulating a management and disposal plan based on the current status of the application for parcelling-out after the completion of the period for application for parcelling-out, including the estimated amount of the site or structure scheduled for parcelling-out by the object of parcelling-out, the estimated amount of the rearrangement project cost, and the timing of sharing the burden to the association members following the improvement project cost, and the above provision is a mandatory provision.

4) However, the Plaintiff established a management and disposition plan without including all the above matters with respect to the Defendant and obtained authorization, and such approval was in violation of Article 48 of the Do administration and disposition plan prior to the above, and its defect is so severe that it becomes null and void.

5) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking delivery of the instant real estate is without merit, on the ground that a management and disposal plan or its authorization was obtained on the premise that the said plan is valid, due to the relevant authorization and public notice.

(B) Claim that the duty to deliver the instant real estate is concurrently performed with the payment of liquidation money

Since the Defendant voluntarily withdrawn the application for parcelling-out, it constitutes a person subject to cash settlement pursuant to Article 42(5) of the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation, and thus, is not obligated to deliver the instant real estate before receiving the

B. Determination

(1) The main provisions of the relevant statutes and the articles of incorporation are as follows.

(A) The former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 6852, Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter the same shall apply)

Article 31 (Expropriation of Land, etc.)

(1) The developer may expropriate the land, buildings and other rights necessary for the project within the redevelopment area under the condition of compensation for the sale of the site or constructed facilities. In such cases, Article 42 (1) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor

(2) The executor may expropriate land, buildings and other rights of persons falling under any of the following subparagraphs pursuant to Article 95 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1):

1. An applicant for parcelling-out;

2. Persons who have withdrawn the application for parcelling-out;

3. Persons excluded from objects to parcelling-out according to the management and disposal plans under Article 35.

Article 32 (Application Mutatis Mutandis of Act on Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works)

(1) Except as otherwise provided for in this Act, the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor shall apply mutatis mutandis to the expropriation and use

(2) In applying mutatis mutandis the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor under paragraph (1), the authorization for project implementation under this Act (referring to the preparation of implementation rules and project implementation plans where a redevelopment project is implemented directly by the head of a Si/Gun/Gu; hereafter in this Article, the same shall apply) shall be regarded as the authorization for project under Article 20 (1) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor. In such cases, an application for adjudication shall be made within the period of implementation of redevelopment projects as determined in granting authorization

Article 33 (Application for Parcelling-Out)

(1) An implementer shall notify the owners of land, etc. of the period for application for parcelling-out in a daily newspaper within 14 days from the date the project implementation is publicly announced. In such cases, the period for application for parcelling-out shall be between 30 and

(2) The owners of land, etc. who intend to parcel out the land or constructed facilities shall apply for parcelling-out to the developer within the period for application for parcelling-out under paragraph (1) under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

Article 34 (Approval of Management and Disposal Plan)

(8) When the public announcement is made pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (5), the owners, superficies, persons having chonsegwon, leasers, etc. of the previous land, etc. shall not use or benefit from the previous land, etc. by the date of public announcement of sale in lots pursuant to the provisions of Article 38 (4): Provided, That the same shall not

Article 36 (Measures for Persons Failing to File Application for Parcelling-Out)

The developer shall liquidate the land, etc. under Article 42 when the owner of the land, etc. falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 31 (2): Provided, That the same shall not apply to the case where the land, etc. is expropriated under Article 31.

Article 42 (Settlement Money, etc.)

(1) Where there is a difference between the price of land or building previously owned by a person who has purchased a building site or building facility and the price of the site or building facility he/she has purchased by lots, an implementer shall collect or pay an amount equivalent to the difference after the announcement of

(2) The price pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be appraised in consideration of the location, use, status of use, and expenses incurred in the construction of the site or building: Provided, That this shall not apply where all the owners of the land, etc. consent thereto

(B) Domination

Article 38 (Expropriation or Use of Land, etc.)

Where it is necessary to implement a rearrangement project (limited to the projects falling under Article 8 (4) 1 in cases of a housing reconstruction project; hereafter in this Article, the same shall apply) in an improvement zone, the project implementer may expropriate or use the land, things or other rights under Article 3 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works

Article 40 (Application Mutatis Mutandis of Act on Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works)

(1) Except as otherwise provided for in this Act, the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor shall apply mutatis mutandis to the expropriation and use of the ownership and other rights for implementing rearrangement projects.

(2) In applying mutatis mutandis the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor under paragraph (1), when there is an announcement of the authorization for project implementation (where the head of a Si/Gun directly implements a rearrangement project, referring to an announcement of the project implementation plan under Article 28 (4); hereafter in this Article, the same shall apply), it shall be deemed that there has been the project approval and the announcement thereof under Articles 20 (1) and

Article 46 (Public Notice of Sale in Lots and Application for Sale in Lots)

(1) A project implementer shall notify the owners of lands, etc. of the outline of charges, the period for application for parcelling-out, and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree within 21 days from the date of public announcement of an authorization for project implementation under Article 28 (4) (in cases of a housing reconstruction project, the date of concluding a contract by selecting a contractor under Article 11), and publicly announce in a daily newspaper published in the relevant area the details of the site or structures subject to parcelling-out, etc. In such cases, the period for application for parcelling-out shall be between 30 days and 60 days from the date of notification of the application for parcelling-out: Provided, That where the project implementer deems that there is no impediment to the formulation of a management and disposal plan under

(2) The owners of lands, etc. who intend to parcel out a site or structure shall apply for parcelling-out to the project implementer under the methods and procedures prescribed by Presidential Decree within the period for application for parcelling-out under paragraph (1).

Article 47 (Measures for Persons Failing to File Application for Parcelling-Out)

Where the owners of lands, etc. fall under any of the following subparagraphs, the project implementer shall make a settlement in cash for land, buildings or other rights within 150 days from the date of such conformity in accordance with the procedures prescribed by Presidential Decree:

1. An applicant for parcelling-out;

2. Persons who have withdrawn the application for parcelling-out;

3. A person excluded from objects of parcelling-out according to the management and disposal plan approved under Article 48.

Article 48 (Authorization, etc. for Management and Disposal Plans)

(1) A project implementer (excluding a residential environment improvement project) shall, when the period for application for parcelling-out under Article 46 expires, formulate a management and disposal plan including the following matters based on the current status of application for parcelling-out under Article 46 before demolishing an existing building under this Act, and obtain authorization from the head of a Si/Gun, and the same shall also apply when he/she intends to modify, suspend, or discontinue a management and disposal plan: Provided, That he/she shall report to the head

1. Design for sale;

2. Address and name of a purchaser;

3. Estimated amounts of the sites or structures scheduled for parcelling-out by person subject to parcelling-out;

4. Price based on the details of the previous land or buildings by person subject to parcelling-out and the date of public announcement of authorization for project implementation;

5. Estimated amounts of the rearrangement project costs, and the sharing size and sharing period for the partnership members following thereto;

6. Details of rights other than ownership of the previous land or buildings subject to parcelling-out.

7. Other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree for the rights, etc. relating to rearrangement projects.

(2) The details of management and disposal plans under paragraph (1) shall be as follows:

1. Sites or structures shall be allocated to the applicants for parcelling-out in a balanced manner, and utilized rationally, in comprehensive consideration of the size, utilization status, environment, and other matters of the previous land or structures;

2. To ensure that, where necessary for the unduly narrow or broad lands or structures, sites or structures become the reasonable size by increasing or decreasing them;

3. Settlement in cash may be performed for the persons who have acquired the unduly narrow lands or structures or the lands divided after a designation of the rearrangement zone;

4. When deemed specially necessary to adjust the land size in order to prevent the disasters or hygienic dangers, one may increase the unduly narrow land, make compensations in lieu of the land, or deliver the co-ownership shares of a part of structures and the sites on which the said structure is located;

5. Plans for the design for parcelling-out shall be formulated on the basis of an expiration date of the period for application for parcelling-out under Article 46;

Article 49 (Perusal of Management and Disposal Plans and Its Authorization Procedures, etc.)

(6) When a public announcement is made pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (3), any right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or building shall not use or benefit from the previous land or building until the date of public announcement of relocation pursuant to the provisions of Article 54: Provided, That the same shall not apply where he/she has obtained the consent

Article 54 (Public Notice, etc. of Transfer)

(1) When a public announcement is made under Article 52 (3) and (4), the project implementer shall promptly conduct a final survey of sites, notify persons entitled to parcelling-out of the matters determined by the management and disposal plan after going through procedures for land partitioning, and transfer the ownership of the sites or structures to the relevant persons: Provided, That where necessary for efficiently implementing the rearrangement project, he/she may obtain authorization for completion of the completed portion before the whole completion of works for the relevant rearrangement project, and transfer the ownership of each site or structure to the relevant persons entitled

(C) Enforcement Decree of the Do Government Act

Article 48 (Liquidation Procedures for Persons, etc. who Fail to File Application for Parcelling-Out)

Where a project implementer is liquidated in cash for land, buildings and other rights of the owners of land, etc. pursuant to Article 47 of the Act, the liquidation amount shall be determined through consultation between the project implementer and the owners of land, etc. In such cases, it may be consulted on the basis of the amount calculated by averaging the values appraised by at least two appraisal business entities under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal

(D) Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation (No. 10-2)

Article 42 (Application for Sale, etc.)

(4) Where a member of the association falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the association shall liquidate the buildings and other rights in cash within 150 days from the date he/she falls under such cases. The amount shall be calculated by calculating the arithmetic mean of the values appraised by at least two appraisal business entities recommended by the head

1. An applicant for parcelling-out;

2. Persons who have withdrawn the application for parcelling-out;

3. Persons excluded from objects of parcelling-out under the authorized management and disposal plan.

(5) Members shall conclude a contract for sale within 60 days after the approval for the management and disposal plan, and the provisions of paragraph (4) shall apply mutatis mutandis (afterward, with respect to the provisions of the articles of association amended by the "within 60 days" to the "within 6 months", which are amended by the "within 6 months", to the head of the Busan Gold-gu Office on June 25,

(2) Facts of recognition

(A) After receiving project implementation authorization on March 7, 2006, the Plaintiff announced the members including the Defendant of May 4, 2006 by setting the period of application for parcelling-out as the period of application for parcelling-out and notified them of the guidance for parcelling-out to the members, including the Defendant, as to “the details of summary charges”, the Plaintiff announced that “the average appraised value of the previous land and buildings (hereinafter “previous value”) and the estimated project cost of the land or buildings scheduled for parcelling-out and the estimated project cost until the completion of the project, by the proportional rate formulated and calculated by the management and disposal plan, such as the estimated value of the land or buildings to be parcelling-out and the estimated project cost by the estimated project cost until the completion of the project, the difference between the pre-sale price and the pre-sale price (or commercial) and the pre-sale price calculated by the proportional rate, and then the details of the charges for each unit at the general meeting of the association members for later management and disposal plan

(B) Upon receipt of the above notification, the Defendant applied for parcelling-out of 50 square meters in total, including 30 square meters on May 1, 2006 and 20 square meters on real estate offices.

(C) On December 1, 2006, the Plaintiff notified the members, including the Defendant, of the convocation of an extraordinary general meeting of the union members of the “establishment of a management and disposal plan (draft)” to be held on December 15, 2006, and attached at the end the “detailed statement of individual management and disposal plan” to the end.

The detailed statement of the management and disposal plan against the defendant is that the previous value of the land was KRW 286,40,00 as a result of the appraisal, the previous value of the building was KRW 113,33,50,00, and the previous value of the building was KRW 113,33,50, and the sale price of the real estate in this case was 45,696,190, and the sale price of the real estate in this case was KRW 455,696,190, and the sale price of the real estate in this case was 50,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000

On the other hand, the plaintiff stated in the above management and disposition plan that the company's member who applied for the commercial building will make a new notification at the time of the establishment of the management and disposition plan by setting the use of the commercial building and the sale price

(D) On December 15, 2006, the Plaintiff decided to establish a management and disposal plan at the temporary assembly of the association members held on December 15, 2006. From December 1, 2006, upon notification of the details of the charges according to appraisal and evaluation, the Plaintiff continued to seek to seek the withdrawal of the application for parcelling-out since the management and disposal plan was established even after the resolution was passed at the above general assembly. On December 19, 2006, the Plaintiff notified the union members of December 19, 2006 that “the alteration period of the desired level is extended to December 27, 2006, and the union members who want to withdraw the application for parcelling-out due to unavoidable circumstances should also withdraw the application for parcelling-out by the above period.” The Plaintiff continued to implement the compensation procedure for cash settlement

(E) From December 30, 2006 to January 29, 2007, the Plaintiff made a public inspection of the relevant documents for authorization of the management and disposal plan, and among the management and disposal plan formulated as above, the public inspection statement of the management and disposal plan with respect to the Defendant was written in the same manner as the previous value of the land and buildings in the instant real estate, the proportional ratio, the standard price for the sale of the instant real estate, the Defendant’s desired deliberation, etc. However, the said statement did not contain any description of the deliberation and sale price allocated to the Defendant, and any charges imposed according to the maintenance and disposal plan charges.

On the other hand, the plaintiff also stated in the public inspection statement of the above management and disposal plan that in the case of a member who applied for the commercial building, the commercial use and the sale price will be determined in the future.

(F) On April 11, 2007, after obtaining the authorization of the management and disposal plan, the Plaintiff notified the members, including the Defendant, of the details of the authorization of the management and disposal plan. The notice of the authorization of the management and disposal plan to the Defendant was written in the same manner as the previous statement of public inspection of the management and disposal plan. However, the proportional rate was 120%, and the sale price of the instant real estate was changed to 479,680,000 won, respectively. Meanwhile, there was no statement of the sale price of the instant real estate and the charges imposed on the maintenance and disposal plan charges

(G) On June 13, 2007, the Defendant withdrawn the application for parcelling-out on the ground that the instant real estate was low-evaluation and that the contract for parcelling-out was delayed.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, evidence 1, 2, 3, 10-1, 2, 11-1 through 5, evidence 12-1, 2, 13-1 through 4, evidence 1, 2, 14-1, 14-2, 15-1 through 4, 16-1, 2, 17-1, 2, and 3-1, 2, and 3

(3) Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of the above 2. A. (2)

According to the above facts, although the plaintiff did not notify the defendant of the detailed details of the management and disposal plan and the notice of the management and disposal plan, it can be acknowledged that the defendant did not state the defendant's specific details of the charges, the defendant applied for the sale of only the commercial building, i.e., the defendant applied for the sale price since the division of the commercial building becomes final and conclusive after the approval of the management and disposal plan was granted. Accordingly, the plaintiff applied for the sale of the commercial building in the public inspection of the management and disposal plan to the defendant, and the plaintiff stated that the detailed sale price of the commercial building should be determined and notified at the time of planning to revise the management and disposal plan, taking into account these circumstances, it is difficult to view that the above management and disposal plan or the notice of the management and disposal plan as argued by the defendant is invalid. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(4) Judgment on the defendant's assertion of the above 2. A. (2) (b)

(A) First of all, the issue of this case is whether the defendant's application for parcelling-out was legally withdrawn and accordingly whether the defendant is subject to cash settlement under Article 48 of the Do administration Act. Therefore, this issue is examined.

As seen above, the defendant withdrawn the intention to apply for parcelling-out on June 13, 2007, and did not conclude the contract with the plaintiff until 60 days after the date of the approval plan for the management and disposal plan of this case. In light of the plaintiff's articles of association, the contents of the management and disposal plan, such as confirmation of the partners subject to parcelling-out, are to be determined based on the expiration date of the disposal plan, but it does not seem that the above provision does not exclude the cases where the members, such as the defendant, did not enter into the contract within 60 days after the approval plan for the management and disposal plan of this case, and whether the sale contract is subject to cash liquidation since the plaintiff's articles of association did not enter into the contract within the period of contract for parcelling-out under the provisions of the plaintiff's articles of association. In light of the plaintiff's articles of association, the size of the building subject to parcelling-out after the approval for the management and disposal plan and the amount of the building subject to parcelling-out is not sold again according to the plaintiff's articles of association 4(2) and 4).

(B) In addition, in the case of a person subject to cash settlement like the defendant, whether the right to use and benefit from the previous land is restricted from the time when the approval of the management and disposal plan was announced even before the defendant union makes cash settlement pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Do

1) Specific cash clearing procedures under these relevant laws and regulations can be seen as follows:

A) The former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 6852, Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter the same) stipulates that a person who does not apply for parcelling-out among the owners of the land within the redevelopment area, etc., or who has withdrawn the application for parcelling-out or who is excluded from the object of parcelling-out under the management and disposal plan (hereinafter referred to as “person subject to cash settlement”) shall pay the settlement money after the announcement of the parcelling-out disposition as to the land or constructed facilities, in the same way as the person who purchased the housing site or constructed facilities (see Articles 36, 31(2), 42, and 32 of the former Urban Redevelopment Act).

B) In contrast, Article 47 of the Do Government Act and Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the Do Government Act, the project implementer shall liquidate land, buildings, or other rights to a person subject to the settlement of cash within 150 days from the date on which he/she falls under the said Act, but the liquidation amount shall be calculated through consultation between the project implementer and the person subject to the settlement of cash, and the same provisions as the Gu Urban Redevelopment Act are not provided. On the other hand, Articles 38 and 40(1) of the Do Government Act provide that the project implementer may expropriate or use land, goods, or other rights under Article 3 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Compensation Act”) if necessary to implement the rearrangement project within the rearrangement zone, and in this case, the Do Government Act shall apply mutatis mutandis, except as otherwise provided in the Do Government Act.

C) Ultimately, in full view of these provisions, settlement money for the person subject to settlement of cash such as the defendant shall be determined by a consultation between the project operator and the person subject to settlement of cash, but if the consultation does not lead to an agreement, it shall be deemed that the project operator and the person subject to settlement of cash will be implemented through the expropriation procedure under the Public Works Compensation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du2954, Mar. 13, 2008).

2) We examine whether the Defendant’s obligation to deliver the instant real estate and the Plaintiff’s obligation to liquidate cash can be seen as having a relationship of simultaneous performance.

A) At the time of application of the former Urban Redevelopment Act, even if a person is a person subject to cash settlement, there was a provision of Article 49(6) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act under the condition that there was a provision of Article 34(8) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act with the same content as that of Article 34(8) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act. As such, not only the members who agreed to purchase a parcel of land and building within the redevelopment area but also the person subject to cash settlement could seek a delivery of the land and building within the redevelopment area under Article 34(8) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act, and therefore, in the case of a person subject to cash settlement, it was impossible to assert that the person subject to

B) However, at the time of application of the Do Government Act, as seen above, Article 47 of the Do Government Act and Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the Do Government Act stipulate that the time of cash settlement for the person subject to cash settlement should be settled in the future, and if the agreement on cash settlement is not reached, the expropriation procedure under the Compensation for Public Works Act shall be implemented. In addition, Article 49(6) of the Do Government Act provides that when the approval of the management and disposal plan is publicly announced, the right holder, such as the owner of the previous land or structure, shall not use or benefit from the previous land or structure until the date of the public announcement of the relocation under Article 54. This is merely restricting the buyer’s exercise of rights from the date of approval of the management and disposal plan to the date of public announcement of the transfer under Article 54 of the Do Government Government Administration and Disposal Act, and that the ownership transfer right of the person subject to the redevelopment should also be interpreted in accordance with Article 56(4) of the Do Government Administration and Disposal Act.

Therefore, according to the above legal principles, Article 49(6) of the Do administration Act cannot be interpreted as being under the former Urban Redevelopment Act. Ultimately, in order to achieve harmony with the above legal principles, Article 49(6) of the Do administration Act is reasonable to deem that the redevelopment association can unilaterally seek the delivery of land, structures, etc. only when it falls under the objects of sale among the members of the redevelopment association.

3) However, since it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff did not take the above procedures for consultation or acceptance with the Defendant, and does not liquidate cash equivalent to the market price of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff cannot unilaterally seek the delivery of the instant real estate to the Defendant pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Do administration Act (i.e., the Plaintiff is entitled to make a settlement payment through the aforementioned procedures for cash settlement, and at the same time, seek the delivery of the instant real estate).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the defendant's appeal is accepted, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges High Regulations (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)