1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction project association authorized by the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) on December 21, 2007.

B. On December 12, 2008, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the project whose enforcement area covers 52,476m2 in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangnam-gu. On April 16, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the project partially changing the reconstruction implementation area, site area, housing site area, sales household, and horizontal type.

C. From May 30, 2013 to July 28, 2013, the Plaintiff received an application for parcelling-out from a cooperative member, and extended the period to August 11, 2013 (hereinafter “first application for parcelling-out”); again, received an additional application for parcelling-out from April 29, 2014 to May 16, 2014 (hereinafter “second application for parcelling-out”).

The defendant net B before the takeover owns and occupies the real estate of this case located within the above rearrangement project zone, but the plaintiff's member was agreed to establish the plaintiff association, but did not apply for parcelling-out during the above application period for parcelling-out.

After that, B died on October 25, 2015, and C (hereinafter “Defendant”) who is the taking over of the Defendant’s lawsuit (hereinafter “Defendant”) simply succeeded to the instant real estate (an inheritance by agreement and division).

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association but fails to file an application for parcelling-out, thereby losing the Plaintiff’s member’s status. As such, the Plaintiff’s primary exercise of the right to demand sale by applying mutatis mutandis Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act, and the Plaintiff’s primary purchase and sale on August 12, 2013, the date following the end of the second application for parcelling-out, which is the date following the date of completion of the second application for parcelling-out, shall be based on sale on May 17, 2014