Pakistan-dong Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (Law Firm Chang-Gong, Attorneys Park Jong-bong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 11 others (Attorney Gyeong-Gyeong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

March 14, 2008

1. The Plaintiff:

A. At the same time, Defendant 9 received KRW 218,150,940 from the Plaintiff, and performed each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached list as of January 19, 2006, delivered the real estate listed in Paragraph 1 of the attached list, and ordered the real estate listed in Paragraph 2 of the attached list.

B. Upon receiving KRW 80,900,000 from the Plaintiff, Defendant 1 performed each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate listed in [Attachment List Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6] on January 19, 2006, delivered each of the real estate listed in [Attachment List Nos. 3, 5], and ordered each of the real estate listed in [Attachment List Nos. 4, 6].

C. At the same time, Defendant 2 received KRW 43,800,000 from the Plaintiff, and performed each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate listed in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the attached list on January 19, 206, and delivered the real estate listed in Paragraph 7 of the attached list, and ordered the real estate listed in Paragraph 8 of the attached list.

D. Defendant 10, upon receiving KRW 174,920,450 from the Plaintiff, performed each procedure for the transfer registration of ownership for the real estate listed in Articles 9 and 10 of the [Attachment] List on January 19, 206, transferred the real estate listed in Paragraph 9 of the [Attachment] List, and issued the real estate listed in Paragraph 10 of the [Attachment] list.

E. Upon receiving KRW 59,600,000 from the Plaintiff, Defendant 3 performed each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate listed in [Attachment] Nos. 11 and 12 on January 19, 206, and transferred the real estate listed in [Attachment] No. 11, and issued the real estate listed in [Attachment] No. 12, and ordered the real estate listed in [Attachment] No. 12.

F. Defendant 11, upon receiving KRW 106,281,50 from the Plaintiff, performed each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate listed in Articles 13 and 14 of the [Attachment List] on January 19, 206, transferred the real estate listed in [Attachment List No. 13], and issued the real estate listed in [Attachment List No. 14], and ordered the real estate listed in [Attachment List No. 14].

G. Defendant 4 received KRW 259,924,480 from the Plaintiff at the same time, performed each procedure for the transfer registration of ownership for the real estate listed in Articles 15 and 16 of the [Attachment List] on January 19, 206, transferred the real estate listed in [Attachment List No. 15], and issued the real estate listed in [Attachment List No. 16].

H. Defendant 12, while receiving KRW 211,30,854 from the Plaintiff, performed each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate listed in [Attachment] Nos. 17 and 18 on January 19, 206, transferred the real estate listed in [Attachment] No. 17, and issued the real estate listed in [Attachment] No. 18, and ordered the real estate listed in [Attachment] No. 17.

I. Defendant 5, upon receiving KRW 173,381,560 from the Plaintiff, performed each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate listed in Section 19, 20 of the attached Table on January 19, 206, delivered the real estate listed in Section 19 of the attached Table, and issued the real estate listed in Section 20 of the attached Table.

(j) At the same time, Defendant 6 received KRW 288,745,70 from the Plaintiff, and performed each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate listed in Articles 21 and 22 of the [Attachment List] on January 19, 206, transferred the real estate listed in [Attachment List No. 21], and issued the real estate listed in [Attachment List No. 22].

(k) At the same time, Defendant 7 received KRW 844,962,040 from the Plaintiff, and performed each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate listed in [Attachment] Nos. 23, 24, and 25 on January 19, 2006, and delivers each of the real estate listed in [Attachment] Nos. 23, 24, and 24, and ordered each of the real estate listed in [Attachment] No. 25.

(l) Defendant 8, upon receipt of KRW 582,010,078 from the Plaintiff, shall carry out each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate listed in [Attachment] Nos. 26, 27, and 28 on January 19, 2006, deliver each of the real estate listed in [Attachment] Nos. 26, 27, and 27, and order the real estate listed in [Attachment] No. 28.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant 12 are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, the costs of market price appraisal are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder are assessed against the Defendants.

4. A portion of the delivery and surrender of real estate under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed;

In addition to the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, the date of the cause of sale shall be as the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, the defendant 12 shall be paid KRW 181,865,100 from the plaintiff, while the defendant 12 shall carry out each procedure for the transfer of ownership for the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 17 and 18 on March 7, 2006, and deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 17 and order the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 18 on the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The Plaintiff Union is a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association established for the reconstruction of new collective housing after demolishing old and inferior existing buildings built in the Daegu Suwon-gu and 263 lots of land (hereinafter referred to as the “instant rearrangement zone”) in accordance with the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”), and the Defendants own each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “each real estate of this case”) within the rearrangement zone of this case.

B. The establishment and reconstruction resolution of the Plaintiff association

(1) The Plaintiff association obtained the consent of 208 owners of land or buildings in the instant rearrangement zone from 249 to establish an association for the purpose of a rearrangement project as follows. On August 13, 2005, the Plaintiff association passed a resolution for reconstruction (hereinafter “rebuilding resolution of this case”), the resolution for the establishment of the Plaintiff association, and the enactment of the articles of association.

(a)Design outline of new buildings;

-Land size (public supplementary area): 37,219m2, total floor area: 128,417.9m2

-Scale: 12 units of multi-family housing of 15 stories underground and 743 units of multi-family housing, and ancillary and welfare facilities;

(B) Estimated cost of removal and new construction of the building

- Removal costs: 1.2 billion won

- New construction costs: 102.7 billion won in money

- Other business costs: 20.8 billion won in money

- Total: 124.7 billion won 38.0 million won

(C) Allocation of the cost of removal and construction of the structure

-to impose and collect expenses by the association articles and to make a provisional settlement at the time of administration and disposal, and to determine the final settlement at the time of liquidation of the association.

- calculated the value of assets owned by partners as prescribed by the articles of association and subject to the administration and disposal period prescribed by the articles of association in accordance with the principle of equity.

- The costs of construction and all related expenses for projects to be paid to the contractor shall be preferentially appropriated as general sales revenue of housing and appurtenant and welfare facilities and as the shares of association members resolved or written consent from the General Assembly of Association members and, if any shortage occurs, fairly shared in accordance with the articles of association and the standards for

(d) Matters concerning the allotment of partitioned ownership of new buildings

- In accordance with the standards for administration and disposal of the articles of association, a sale screening decision for newly constructed structures by a housing owner shall be made in the order of a maximum amount of the application for parcelling-out and the value of the previous rights, and the same shall be determined in accordance with the

- The owners of ancillary facilities, such as commercial buildings, shall be supplied with welfare facilities newly established in consideration of the value of the previous land and buildings in accordance with the articles of association and the management and disposal standards, and the determination of the same use shall be

- The size of housing units to be sold after the implementation of the project shall be based on the size of housing units to be sold, and the site shall be co-owned in proportion to the size of housing units sold.

- Welfare facilities, such as remaining houses and commercial buildings, which are sold preferentially to partners, shall be sold in general as determined by the relevant laws and regulations and by the articles of association. Land shall be registered after completion of the project, and buildings shall be registered for the conservation of each occupant partner.

(e) Other: (a) to (d) above may be modified in accordance with the content of the project implementation authorization, the terms of the contract with the contractor, etc., and the expenditure of the project cost; (b) where the content is modified or adjustment of the settlement money, etc. of partnership members is required, it shall be changed later to the contents of the resolution made at the general meeting of union members; and (c) in substitution of this

(2) On the other hand, the articles of association of the Plaintiff Union, which was resolved at the above inaugural general meeting, provides for the following matters in relation to union members’ charges and

(A) Matters to be resolved by the general meeting: The amount and method of collecting dues under Article 61 of the Urban Improvement Act, and the details of allocation for each member of the rearrangement project costs shall be determined by the resolution of the general meeting (Article 21).

(b) Imposition and collection of rearrangement project costs: A cooperative may impose on its members the rearrangement project costs required for the housing project, such as construction costs, through a general meeting resolution, in order to cover the expenses incurred in implementing the project, and fairly adjust the amount according to the management and disposal plan (Article

(C) Standards for management and disposal plans: A management and disposal plan for the property owned by the association members shall be formulated before the removal of the building after the application for parcelling-out and the construction cost is finalized, and shall be formulated in accordance with the following standards (Article 4

- In principle, houses, etc. to be newly built on the basis of the value or size of the previous land and buildings invested by a partner should be sold.

- The size of a building to be sold in lots after the implementation of the project shall be based on the size of sale in lots (exclusive + co-owned area), and the land shall be co-owned shares in accordance with the example of the size of sale in lots.

- The scale of housing to be sold to the association members shall be prepared for a construction plan and determined by deliberation after receiving an authorization for project implementation.

- The allocation of new structures for members by an ordinary type shall be based on the application for parcelling-out by the members and, in the event of competition in the parcelling-out mode, by the board of representatives.

- The substitute compensation area or substitute compensation amount and the price of newly-built house, etc. calculated on the basis of previous land and buildings in which a partner has invested, shall be in accordance with the agreement with the contractor determined through a general meeting of partners, and when a partner differs from the price of newly-built house, etc., payment or imposition shall be made in accordance with the provisions of

- A management and disposal plan may be formulated separately from multi-family housing pursuant to an agreement separately determined by the association, in consultation with the contractor, for ancillary and welfare facilities, such as commercial buildings established within the project implementation

- When one household owns 1 or more houses, 1 house shall be supplied, and when 2 or more persons co-own 1 house, only 1 house shall be supplied, provided that in cases falling under each item of Article 48(2)6 of the Urban Improvement Act, as many as the number of houses owned may be supplied.

- A unit or welfare facility owner shall be supplied with ancillary and welfare facilities, but may be supplied with one house to the owner of the ancillary and welfare facilities in any of the following cases:

(1) Where a new appurtenant or welfare facility is not supplied, the value of the previous appurtenant or welfare facility shall not be less than the value calculated by multiplying the estimated value of the minimum unit of the housing unit to be sold by the ratio determined by the general meeting (where not determined, 1).

(2) The amount obtained by subtracting the estimated value of the newly supplied appurtenant or welfare facilities from the value of the previous appurtenant or welfare facilities shall be at least the value calculated by multiplying the estimated value of the minimum sale unit of the housing for sale by the ratio determined by the general meeting

(3) The estimated value of a newly supplied appurtenant or welfare facility shall be at least the minimum estimated value of a unit unit for sale of a house for sale.

(4) Where all partners consent to the agreement.

- The evaluation of previous houses, appurtenant and welfare facilities shall be the arithmetic mean of the values appraised by at least two appraisal business entities.

- The evaluation of housing and ancillary and welfare facilities scheduled for sale shall be the amount assessed by at least two appraisal business entities, stating the amount assessed by them.

(d) Liquidation amount: In case where there is a difference between the price of the land or building previously owned by the purchaser of the land or building and that of the land or building sold in lots, the Mutual Association shall collect or pay to the purchaser of the land or building an amount equivalent to the difference (hereinafter “Settlement money”) after the date of the announcement of transfer to the purchaser, and in applying the above provision, the price of the land or building previously owned and the land or building purchased in lots shall be calculated by taking an arithmetic mean of the values appraised by two appraisal business entities or more (Article 53).

(3) As to establishing an association thereafter, the Plaintiff Mutual Aid Association obtained the consent of at least 2/3 of the sectional owners and voting rights for each building of multi-family housing in the instant housing complex (A.67% of Dong 91.67% of Dong 95.83% of Dong 95) and the consent of at least 4/5 of all sectional owners and voting rights within the housing complex (93.75% of all sectional owners within the instant housing complex) and at least 4/5 of the landowners and building owners within the area which is not the housing complex in the instant rearrangement zone (land 70.78%, building 81.28%), and the consent of at least 2/3 of the land size (72.27%) from the head of the Daegu Metropolitan City on November 11, 2005.

C. Exercise of peremptory notice and demand for sale against the Defendants

(1) The Plaintiff Union sent a peremptory notice to the Defendants who did not participate in the reconstruction within two months from the date of receipt of whether they would participate in the reconstruction on November 15, 2005, and to file a lawsuit claiming the sale of the market price by deeming that they did not intend to participate in the reconstruction if they did not comply therewith, along with the written consent of the establishment of the association, by content-certified mail.

(2) The market price of each real estate of this case, which was considered development gains such as reconstruction around December 26, 2005, is the amount indicated in the Overall Protection among the indications of each real estate in the separate sheet.

(3) Upon filing the instant lawsuit on December 26, 2005, the Plaintiff Union urged the Defendants to participate in the reconstruction project once again, and made a claim for sale under Article 39 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and Article 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Act”). A duplicate of the instant complaint stating the said declaration of intent was served on Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, Defendant 7, and 10 on January 9, 2006, respectively.

(4) After receipt of a peremptory notice from the Plaintiff Union on November 15, 2005, the Defendants submitted a written reply stating that they did not intend to participate in reconstruction after the delivery of a duplicate of the instant complaint to the effect that they did not intend to participate in reconstruction after the lapse of two months.

(5) On December 26, 2005, the amount of each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by Defendant 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 minus the amount of the secured debt, the amount of the secured debt, the amount of the secured debt, and the amount of the secured debt and the amount of the secured debt, listed in the separate sheet owned by Defendant 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8

[Attachment]

1. 2. 1. 1. 4. 1. 4. 4. 1. 5 : 1. 1. 4. 5 ; 4. 6 ; 4. 1. 5 ; 4. 1. 5 ; 3. 5 ; 4. 1. 5 ; 4. 1. 5 ; 4. 1. 5 ; 40. 5 ; 40. 1. 5 ; 30. 5 ; 40. 1. 5 ; 40. 5 ; 40. 1. 5 ; 40. 1. 5 ; 40. 1. 5 ; 30. 5 ; 40. 5 ; 40. 62. 5 ; 30. 15 ; 40. 5 ; 40. 75 ; 40. 10. ;

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's 4, 7, 8, 9, 12 through 17, 22, 25 through 30, 38 through 41, 44, 47, 48, 51 through 56, 61, 64, 65, 71, 74 through 79 (including each number in the case of additional numbers), the results of the appraisal in the net manner of appraiser's rights, the results of response based on each financial institution's order to submit financial transaction information as described in the above table, the whole purport of the pleadings,

2. Determination:

A. The occurrence of the claim for sale

According to the above facts, with respect to reconstruction of land and buildings within the rearrangement zone of this case, the association consented to legitimate establishment of the association under Article 16 (2) and (3) of the Act, and the defendants who did not consent to the establishment of the association delivered a written peremptory notice of reply to whether to participate in reconstruction on November 15, 2005 to the association by contents-certified mail was served within three days from the date of delivery, unless there are special circumstances such as return of mail by contents-certified certificate. Thus, the above peremptory notice was served to the defendants on November 18, 2005 (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da38322, Feb. 25, 1997). Since the plaintiff association did not explicitly consent to the establishment of the association, the plaintiff association's peremptory notice of consent to the defendants' request to participate in the reconstruction project of this case is also stated in the list of the plaintiff's written peremptory notice to the defendants as to whether to participate in the reconstruction project at the market price of the association of this case. The plaintiff association did not respond to each of this case within 15 months.

B. Establishment of a sales contract

Furthermore, with respect to the establishment of a sales contract upon the exercise of the right to demand sale, the public health unit, the Plaintiff Union's urge the Defendants to reply to whether to participate in reconstruction on November 18, 2005, and at the same time, it exercised the right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act at the same time with the peremptory notice of reply to whether to participate in reconstruction through the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

Although the plaintiff union filed the lawsuit in this case from November 18, 2005, which was the last day of the response as to whether the plaintiff union participated in the rebuilding to the defendants, on December 26, 2005, before the lapse of the response period of two months from November 18, 2005, the plaintiff union exercised the right to demand sale by serving a copy of the complaint. Therefore, during the response period, it is unclear whether the plaintiff union's right to demand sale has been finally created within the above response period. However, as long as the plaintiff union already consented to legitimate establishment of the association related to the rebuilding at the time of the lawsuit in this case, and the plaintiff union had met the prerequisite for the right to demand sale by giving notice to the defendants as to the right to demand sale, the plaintiff union's expression of intent at the time of exercising the right to demand sale includes the purport of exercising the right to demand sale under the condition that the above defendants association' right to demand sale has become final and conclusive without the consent of the establishment of the association in this case. Thus, even if each of the plaintiff's right to demand was not effective from 15.

C. Calculation of the purchase price

(1) At the time of December 26, 2005, the market price of each of the instant real estate as of December 26, 2005 can be recognized as the pertinent appraisal price for each of the pertinent real estate listed in the separate sheet, and thereafter, it is confirmed that the market price was the same amount at the time of

(2) However, the purchaser of the mortgaged real estate may refuse to pay the purchase price equivalent to the secured debt of the mortgaged real estate until the cancellation of the right to collateral security (Supreme Court Decision 87Da1029 Decided September 27, 198), and the purchaser of the real estate attached to tax in arrears may refuse to pay the purchase price before the cancellation of the seizure (Supreme Court Decision 67Da813 Decided July 11, 1967). Thus, the Plaintiff may refuse to pay the purchase price in the above table [Attachment] out of the purchase price equivalent to the amount stated in the market price (A), the amount mentioned in the column for secured collateral and secured bond (B) on the real estate (B) until the cancellation of the right to collateral security or the cancellation of the execution of the seizure. Therefore, the Plaintiff may seek against the Defendants the payment remaining after deducting the refused payment, i.e., the amount obtained by deducting the secured debt and the secured claim amount from the market price (III) by paying the purchase price.

D. Accordingly, as the Plaintiff Union seeks, the Defendants, as stated in the corresponding column in Paragraph (1) of this Article, are paid from the Plaintiff Union the amount obtained by deducting the secured obligation and the preserved amount from each of the pertinent appraisal values or appraisal values of each of the instant real estate. At the same time, the Plaintiff Union is obligated to register the transfer of ownership based on the sale of each of the instant real estate as of January 19, 2006, and to order the delivery and building of each land.

3. Determination on the assertion by Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12

(a) A captain;

(1) Failure to meet the requirements for establishing the right to sell

(A) In order to establish the right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, there should be a valid rebuilding resolution. However, the rebuilding resolution of the Plaintiff Union is null and void on the ground that the Plaintiff Union did not specify the estimated amount of expenses incurred in the removal of buildings and construction of new buildings under Article 47 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 12)

(B) The Defendants did not receive a peremptory notice from the Plaintiff Union on November 14, 2005. Thus, there was no legitimate peremptory notice on the premise that the right to demand sale was established ( Defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 12).

(C) Although the matters to be reconstructed should be specified in detail, the highest notice in this case does not have the effect as a legitimate peremptory notice on the premise that the right to demand sale is established (Defendant 4, 8, 9, 12).

(2) improper sales price

Even if the exercise of the claim for sale of the instant real estate is lawful, the purchase price of each of the instant real estate should be determined by agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and it should be based on the actual transaction price of each of the said real estate or neighboring land. However, it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff Union to unilaterally institute a lawsuit without any consultation with the Defendants and determine the appraisal price that is not reflected in new buildings, lease proceeds, development gains, and neighboring land transaction market prices (Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12).

(3) Infringement of property right

The mere reason that the Plaintiff did not participate in the reconstruction project is an unconstitutional act that infringes on the Defendants’ property rights guaranteed under the Constitution to transfer the ownership of each of the instant real estate owned by the Defendants by unilaterally exercising the right to demand sale regardless of the Defendants’ intent (Defendant 4, 8, 9, 12).

(b) Markets:

(1) Whether the requirements for establishing the right to demand sale are met

(A) Whether a peremptory notice is received

As seen earlier, Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 12 had reached each of the Defendants’ respective copies of the instant complaint containing a peremptory notice or peremptory notice issued on November 15, 2005 by the Plaintiff Union. Thus, each of the Defendants’ respective arguments are without merit, under the premise that Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 12 did not receive the peremptory notice from the Plaintiff

(B) Whether the rebuilding resolution was adopted and whether the rebuilding resolution was indicated in the highest letter

1) Article 16 of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 26(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that when a housing reconstruction association is established, the project owner’s consent should be obtained on a rough amount of expenses to be incurred in the removal and new construction of the building, matters concerning the ownership after completion of the project, and matters concerning the ownership ownership. Matters concerning the removal of the building and the apportionment of expenses to be incurred in the construction of the new building are the criteria for landowners, etc. to bear considerable expenses, to whether the landowners, etc. will participate in reconstruction, to sell ownership, etc. at the market price, or not to participate in reconstruction, and to choose whether the owner, etc. will sell ownership, etc. at the market price. Therefore, the method of determination shall not be omitted in obtaining the consent of the establishment of the association. However, it is sufficient to set the apportionment or standard to the extent that the association does not reach an agreement on the cost-bearing at the stage of reconstruction, and the highest notice should be given in writing, but the aforementioned matters are clearly stated in the final notice, but it is sufficiently known through 250 or maximum opportunity to participate in the reconstruction process (see Supreme Court’s.

2) In this case, the right to claim sale under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings requires a valid rebuilding resolution, but Article 39 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings applies mutatis mutandis to Article 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, but it cannot be deemed that the right to request sale under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings requires a valid rebuilding resolution. In addition, even if a valid rebuilding resolution is deemed necessary even in the case of a right to claim sale under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, according to the rebuilding resolution of this case, the rebuilding cost amounting to KRW 124.738 billion is estimated. The share of the above costs is to be collected in accordance with the association's articles of association, calculated the value of the property of the association members as prescribed by the association's articles of association and to equally bear the expenses according to the standards for the management and disposal of the newly constructed building. Since the sale standard of the newly constructed building after the implementation of the project is to be based on the size of the newly constructed building after the execution of the project, the price of the building is to be adjusted and assessed to the owner of each unit.

(2) Whether the sale price is adequate

(A) The right to claim sale under Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 48 of the Aggregate Buildings Act is a right to form a sale claim, and at the same time a declaration of intent to exercise the right to claim sale and at the same time a sale contract is established with respect to land or buildings owned by a person who does not participate in reconstruction as the market price. Here, the market price refers to the objective transaction price of land or buildings at the time when the right to claim sale is exercised and the price that includes development gains expected to accrue from reconstruction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da38172, Jan. 23, 1996). Thus, it cannot be said that the sale price established under the sale contract shall

(B) Furthermore, according to the appraiser's net appraisal result in this case, when evaluating the market price of each real estate of this case as of December 26, 2005 based on the standard published land price in neighboring areas, the appraiser evaluated the market price of each real estate of this case from the basic date to the price basis to the price basis, comprehensively considering the fact that each real estate listed in the separate sheet was included in the rearrangement zone under the Urban Improvement Act and the neighboring land price level, etc., the appraisal is necessary to revise approximately 270% by taking into account the appraisal example, development gains by the stage of implementing a reconstruction project, market price ratio of the officially announced land price, and other factors, etc. Accordingly, it is recognized that the above appraisal result is reasonable in light of the expected development gains included in the expected development gains, and thus, it is not reasonable in the above appraisal result. Accordingly, Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12-12 of the above assertion is without merit.

(3) Whether the property right has been infringed

On the other hand, the right to demand sale under the Urban Improvement Act is a minimum necessary condition for re-building so that it is inevitable to exercise the right to demand sale against the person who does not consent to re-building as long as the re-building system is recognized. This is a limitation within a reasonable scope on the property rights of the person who does not consent to re-building. Therefore, the above assertion by Defendant 4, 8, 9, and 12 to the effect that the exercise of the right to demand sale by

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case by the plaintiff union is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment of List]

Judges Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge)