The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, found the following: (a) Defendant B apartment reconstruction association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”)’s purchase of the land of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I, which the Plaintiff already purchased from F, infringes on the Plaintiff’s right to claim ownership transfer registration; and (b) in order to constitute a tort, the fact of double selling is insufficient, and (c) requested

(2) The Defendant Association did not actively notify the fact that the instant building was included in the reconstruction project district in the lawsuit seeking the removal of the instant building between G and the Plaintiff, a foundation foundation, and the Plaintiff.

Even if the defendant association can exercise the right to demand sale only when the plaintiff won a favorable award as a result of the above removal lawsuit, and such act of the defendant association is unlawful.

It is difficult to see that the plaintiff or the court was deceiving the plaintiff or the defendant union. ③ Whether the plaintiff as a member of the defendant union has participated in the reconstruction project of this case or can receive compensation through a claim for sale by the defendant union in accordance with the relevant statutes and the articles of association of the defendant union. Since it is not determined by the real estate list submitted by the defendant union at the time of application for the announcement of the housing reconstruction project of this case or the project implementation authorization of the housing reconstruction project of this case, even if there is some omission in the notification, it cannot be said that there is a proximate causal relation between the plaintiff