1. All of the lawsuits of this case, which are changed alternatively in this court, shall be dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is, on November 24, 2003, the head of Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter “head of Seo-gu”) for the purpose of housing reconstruction improvement project of B apartment located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”). The Defendant is, on November 24, 2003, a housing reconstruction and improvement project association that has obtained authorization to establish an association, and the Plaintiff owned the

B. On August 25, 2015, the Defendant received an authorization to implement the project from the head of Seo-gu, the head of the Gu, and received applications for parcelling-out two times from September 4, 2015 to October 4, 2015 against its members, and from October 5, 2015 to October 19, 2015.

On October 16, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted the application documents for parcelling-out.

C. The Defendant established a management and disposal plan based on the current status of the application for parcelling-out and approved by the head of the Gu on January 12, 2016.

On February 1, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the “instant apartment E (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) that the Plaintiff would be newly built as a result of the same heading lottery, and that the sales price was KRW 253,250,000, and that the sales contract was concluded from February 12, 2016 to February 26, 2016.”

However, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to submit to the Plaintiff a document stating all detailed contents of the sales contract and the contract on the grounds that the above sales price differs from the sale price determined by the general meeting of its members, and the Defendant did not conclude the sales contract within the above period without reply.

E. In December 2016, the Defendant deposited KRW 62,028,619 under the premise that “the Plaintiff constitutes a person subject to cash settlement because it fails to conclude a contract within the period for entering into the sales contract,” with the Plaintiff as the principal deposit, etc. The Defendant permitted the Plaintiff to make the instant apartment as the Defendant’s proprietary property on January 2017 as the Gwangju District Court 2016Bu5061.