2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Under Article 13 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act"), the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project association established to improve residential environment in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which has poor infrastructure for rearrangement and concentrated old and inferior buildings, and the Defendant is the owner of the building listed in the attached Table (hereinafter referred to as the "building in this case") located within the above zone and consented to the Plaintiff's establishment, and is the Plaintiff's member who applied for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out, and currently operates a pharmacy on the first floor

The plaintiff was authorized to establish the association on April 21, 2009 from the head of Seongbuk-gu, the authorization to implement the project on April 4, 2013, and the authorization to implement the management and disposal plan on December 22, 2014, and was publicly notified on December 26, 2014.

Plaintiff

Article 10 (1) 7 of the articles of association of a cooperative provides that "members shall have the following rights and obligations: 7. The obligation to remove and move according to a business action plan."

【In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 through 3, 6 (including a branch number), and the defendant’s overall purport of the pleading, the defendant is obligated to deliver the part of the building of this case to the plaintiff as a member, as stipulated in the articles of incorporation.

As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s invalidity of the authorization to establish the association was ① after the Plaintiff obtained a written consent in blank form from the owner of land, etc., and subsequently made a resolution of ratification to the written consent at the inaugural general meeting to supplement it. The consent to establish the association is not subject to the resolution at the general meeting, and thus, the consent to establish the association is not effective. ② Even if the consent to establish the association is valid, five written consent not present at the general meeting of ratification, and one of the co-owners who did not appoint the representative members is not valid. Therefore, the two written consent