The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

A. The Defendant is a cooperative that implements redevelopment and improvement projects under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “instant project”) in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and the Plaintiffs are co-owners of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-122 square meters and detached houses within the instant project zone.

B. On April 1, 2019, the Defendant publicly announced the application for parcelling-out to the members of the association, and the Plaintiffs applied for parcelling-out of one bond of 84 square meters in size to the Defendant for parcelling-out (hereinafter “first application for parcelling-out”).

The Defendant prepared a management and disposal plan with the content of selling one bond of 84 square meters to the Plaintiffs in accordance with the above contents of the application, and made it available to the public, and opened an extraordinary general meeting on December 7, 2019 (hereinafter “instant general meeting”) and passed a resolution on the formulation of the management and disposal plan (hereinafter “instant management and disposal plan”).

C. The management and disposal plan concerning the instant project is waiting for authorization from the head of Dongjak-gu as of the date of closing the argument.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 9 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs asserted that they first known from the OS publicity personnel that they meet the qualification criteria for the application for parcelling-out of two houses as determined by the defendant in the process of public inspection of draft management and disposal plan after the first application for parcelling-out, but the above criteria are not unlawful without the resolution of the general meeting, and the defendant was deprived of the opportunities of the plaintiffs to apply for parcelling-out of two houses because they did not notify the plaintiffs of the

As such, the management and disposal plan of this case under the illegal standards for application for parcelling-out and the procedure for application for parcelling-out is null and void.

(State) Even if the instant management and disposition plan is valid, the Plaintiffs newly filed for the application for parcelling-out of two houses and raised an objection against the instant management and disposition plan.