2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part pertaining to the participation in the litigation is the intervenor joining the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association to implement the housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) in Seongbuk-gu Seoul and 635 parcels, and the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) are owners of land, etc. in the above rearrangement zone.

B. The progress of implementing the instant rearrangement project is as follows.

(2) The general meeting for the establishment of a management and disposition plan as of July 3, 2014 is referred to as the “instant general meeting,” and the management and disposition plan authorized as of December 12, 2014 is referred to as the “instant management and disposition plan” (hereinafter “instant management and disposition plan”). On April 21, 2013 as of April 23, 2013, the general meeting for the implementation of a management and disposition plan for the establishment of a plan for the authorization for the establishment of a separate project on December 3, 2014 on December 12, 2014, the fact that there is no dispute regarding the approval for the establishment of a management and disposition plan for the implementation of a special project for the implementation of a project on December 3, 2014 (based on recognition), Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 2, and 3 (including a provisional number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The defendant's defense prior to the merits asserted that since the plaintiff A and B failed to apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out, they are subject to cash liquidation, there is no legal interest to seek nullification or revocation of the management and disposal plan of this case.

However, if there is a defect of invalidity in the project implementation plan for the housing redevelopment improvement project, there is a legal interest to seek nullification or revocation of the management and disposal plan, since the owner of land, etc. who has lost the status of the association member because he/she did not apply for parcelling-out within the initial period for application for parcelling-out can purchase a building by applying for parcelling-out according to the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du18342, Dec. 8, 2011). In addition to the Plaintiff’s certificate No. 6, Plaintiff A and B became a person subject to cash settlement because they did not apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out.