The judgment below

The part concerning Defendant B is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Busan District Court Panel Division.

1. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined. A.

Article 18-2 (1) of the Housing Act provides that "a project operator who has obtained approval of a project plan pursuant to Article 16 (4) 1 may file a claim with the owner of a site for which he/she has failed to secure a right to use the site among the relevant housing construction sites (including buildings) to sell the site at the market price. In such cases, consultation shall be held for at least three months before filing a claim for sale with the owner of the site subject to such claim for sale." Since consultation does not impose any restriction on the method or time limit of consultation, such consultation may be held even after filing a lawsuit claiming a right to sell (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da97068, Nov. 10, 201). As such, consultation may be conducted through conciliation procedures that are in progress in the course of a lawsuit.

In addition, the above "consultation" means a specific and substantial consultation, and when determining whether such consultation requirements are met, the following circumstances are comprehensively taken into account: (a) whether a project operator who obtained approval for the housing construction project plan presents a sale price or a reasonable ground for the calculation thereof; (b) whether a project operator made an effort to proceed with the consultation; and (c) the housing site owner’s attitude toward the consultation; and (d) the burden

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Da101315 Decided May 9, 2013, etc.). B.

First of all, the claim for the transfer registration procedure based on the sale on January 6, 201 is discussed.

After finding facts as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the performance of the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership against Defendant B, on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the content-certified mail as of January 6, 201, which included the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to exercise the Plaintiff’s right to sell, reached Defendant B

The relevant legal principles and principles.