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

On December 17, 2010, the Defendant is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant project”) with respect to the land of 222,489 square meters in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, which is located in the instant project area, and the Plaintiff is the owner of 2 square meters of land in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, which is located in the instant project area.

After obtaining approval of a project implementation plan from the Suwon market on June 29, 2016, the Defendant, on September 26, 2016, announced the application for parcelling-out on two occasions (from September 26, 2016 to November 4, 2016) and sent a notice of application for parcelling-out (hereinafter “instant notice”) to the address of the Plaintiff (the address of the Plaintiff (the number E and the second floor in Suwon-si) known by the Defendant at the time, but returned the notice of application for parcelling-out (hereinafter “instant notice”) to the address of the Plaintiff at the time, and the Plaintiff failed to apply for parcelling-out during the above period.

Since then, on November 5, 2016, the defendant made an extended announcement of the application for parcelling-out (from November 5, 2016 to November 14, 2016) but the plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out within the above period.

The Defendant established a management and disposition plan to classify the Plaintiff as a person subject to cash settlement (hereinafter referred to as the “management and disposition plan of this case”) on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out according to the public announcement of the above application for parcelling-out, and approved the management and disposition plan of this case from the Suwon market on August 25, 2017 and announced

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 12, each statement of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 10, 11, and 12, and the defense prior to the draft of the whole purport of the pleadings, the summary of the arguments by the parties concerned is that the plaintiff sent the notice of this case to other address than the plaintiff's actual address, and the plaintiff did not file an application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out. Thus, the defendant still