beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant is paid KRW 901,878,722 from the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 12, 2016, the Plaintiff was a regional housing association established by obtaining authorization for the establishment under the Housing Act with the land for housing construction from Kimhae-si and 261 (hereinafter “instant project site”) as the land for housing construction from the Kimhae-si market. On June 16, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained the approval of the project plan for the housing construction project (hereinafter “instant project approval”) with respect to the instant project site (hereinafter “instant housing construction project”). The Kimhae-si announced the approval of the project plan of the instant case on the same day.
B. The Defendant is the owner of each of the instant real estate located in the instant project site.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 11 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the instant real estate was established between the Plaintiff and the Defendant by exercising the right to demand sale under Article 22(1) of the Housing Act against the Defendant, who owns each of the instant real estate within the instant project site. As such, the Defendant is obligated to take procedures for the registration of ownership transfer and deliver each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff at the same time receiving 834,737,78 won from the Plaintiff as a result of appraisal by the appraiser of the first instance trial at the purchase price.
B. Defendant’s assertion ① The Plaintiff secured the right to use real estate more than the ratio required by the Housing Act in order to file a claim for sale with the Defendant. The Plaintiff failed to secure the right to use the real estate. ② In order for the Plaintiff to exercise the right to demand sale under Article 22(1) of the Housing Act, the owner of the relevant housing construction site and the Plaintiff did not hold a substantial and detailed trade consultation with the Defendant even though
③ The Plaintiff