수분양자지위 확인의 소
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Basic Facts
The Defendant is, on July 27, 2012, the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Association approved to establish an association by the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “head of Seongdong-gu”) on July 27, 2012, in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G 48,345.3 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant rearrangement zone”), and the Plaintiffs A are the deceased’s spouse, Plaintiff B, C, D, and E. The deceased’s children.
On January 5, 2017, the Defendant received project implementation authorization for housing redevelopment projects from the head of Seongdong-gu, and provided guidance on the application period for parcelling-out to its members from October 10, 2017 to November 10, 2017.
On December 8, 2018, the Defendant held a general meeting to formulate a management and disposition plan and apply for authorization, and passed a resolution on the management and disposition plan (hereinafter “instant management and disposition plan”).
[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 8 (the number of pages is included; hereinafter the same shall apply)'s assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the judgment of the parties concerned' assertion that the plaintiffs asserted that they owned an unauthorized building (hereinafter "the building without permission of this case") on the ground of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I located within the rearrangement zone of this case. The building without permission of this case constitutes a specific unauthorized building as defined in subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (hereinafter "Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban Areas of this case") because it constitutes an unauthorized building at the time of January 24, 1989, and thus, the plaintiffs, the heir of the deceased, have the status of purchase of new
Therefore, on a different premise, the instant management and disposal plan is null and void, including the fact that the Plaintiffs do not have the status to purchase new apartments.
According to the defendant's argument, the unauthorized building of this case was newly constructed after June 1994.