1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Selection, etc. of persons eligible for livelihood countermeasures;

A. In implementing a housing site development project on April 4, 2008, the non-party Korea Land and Housing Corporation shall inform the non-party who is eligible for livelihood measures of the supply of the re-resident housing site, special supply of housing, and payment of resettlement funds by the method of implementing the relocation measures;

2. A person who receives any business compensation;

3. Selection of persons who have received agricultural compensation of a certain scale or scale;

As to the size of land and supply subject to supply, “to provide the level of 20 square meters in neighboring living facilities sites or 27 square meters in neighboring commercial areas.”

B. On September 19, 2017, Nonparty Korea Land and Housing Corporation notified the original residents, including the Defendant, to be subject to C livelihood countermeasures, and accordingly, the Defendant acquired the right to be supplied with the land for livelihood countermeasures (hereinafter “instant land for livelihood countermeasures”) from Nonparty Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “instant land for purchase”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On February 23, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted through Nonparty D, a broker, entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase the instant purchase price of KRW 2 million from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”) and paid the purchase price. Although the Defendant should succeed to the status of the Plaintiff as a member so that the Plaintiff can purchase the instant land for countermeasures in accordance with the purchase and sale contract for the instant purchase right, the Plaintiff did not perform its contractual duties, such as joining the Defendant directly as a member.

Rather, the defendant asserts the invalidity of the above contract.

Therefore, since the plaintiff cancelled the contract of this case due to the above reasons, the defendant must return to the plaintiff 2 million won to the original state, and also the defendant's assertion.