조합원지위확인
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the reasoning of the disposition are as follows: (a) it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant is deemed to be the head of the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City, which is the reason of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) it is also accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of
2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff owned the instant land within the instant rearrangement zone as a co-owner of F and 1/2 shares. Of the instant land, the size of the land equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share is merely 25.1 square meters, and does not meet the standards for the Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments and the Ordinance on the Building of Busan Metropolitan City. However, if F, a co-owner, owns a building without permission on the instant land from January 10, 2016 to December 5, 2016, the Plaintiff was appointed as a representative partner and the Plaintiff was the representative partner. As such, F, who is not a representative partner, is recognized in the instant management and disposal plan, excluded the Plaintiff from the status of the Plaintiff as a partner and classified the Plaintiff as a person subject to settlement in cash.
B. The plaintiff applied for the sale of apartment units in accordance with the notification of the defendant association, but the defendant excluded the plaintiff from the purchaser on the ground that the land owner below the standard size prescribed by the Busan Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments and the Busan Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Construction of the Building was not the purchaser. Since the defendant also recognized the land owner falling short of the standard area of the above Ordinance as the purchaser, it is unreasonable to classify the plaintiff as the purchaser in cash in the management and disposal
C. The Plaintiff and F separately own the instant land and the instant land on its ground, and thus, Article 22(2)3 and 5 of the Busan Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments.