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

A. On August 3, 2007, the Plaintiff was a member of the Defendant, and the Defendant was authorized to establish a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association with respect to the instant project pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Do Government Act”) from the head of the Busan Metropolitan Government Shipping Unit on August 3, 2007, for the purpose of operating the housing redevelopment and improvement project (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. Meanwhile, an apartment unit sold by the Defendant was a total of 745 households, which were 260 households in lots, 421 households in general, and 64 households in rental houses.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The scope of apartment units to be sold to the association members among the total of 681 households of apartment units, excluding the Plaintiff’s asserted rental apartment units, should be determined by lot, but the Defendant, as a representative meeting, illegally determined.

In other words, Article 50 (1) of the Do Administration Act provides that "a house shall be supplied to the association members according to the authorized management and disposition plan."

In addition, Article 6 of the management and disposal plan authorized by the defendant provides that "the scope of housing to be sold to the union members shall be determined by lot if it competes with each other according to the scheduled status of the union members and the general sale of housing units."

However, since the project of this case conflicts in the scheduled status of the allotment of association members and the allotment of general allotment, the defendant determined the scope of the housing of the allotment of association members through the drawing of the same use, but the defendant did not draw the same use by drawing and decided the allocation of association members' club at the 46th representative meeting on September 20, 2011, and limited the scope of the housing of association members to 260 households.

Therefore, the above decision violates the defendant's management and disposition plan and the law of Do administration.