1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative established for a reconstruction improvement project of the size of 52,476 square meters in Gangnam-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”). The Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on December 12, 2008 from the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and authorization for the implementation of the project on April 16, 2013, respectively.

B. The Defendant owned and occupied the instant real estate located within the said rearrangement project zone, and consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association.

On the other hand, the registration of the establishment of the neighboring real estate was completed on April 19, 1994 by the Seoul Northern District Court's Dobong Branch of Seoul Northern District Court's Dobong Branch of the District Court (22710).

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 referred to as “first application for parcelling-out”) and again received an additional application for parcelling-out from April 29, 2014 to May 16, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “second application for parcelling-out”).

However, the defendant did not file an application for parcelling-out during each of the above applications for parcelling-out.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 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 apply for parcelling-out, thereby losing the Plaintiff’s membership as a result of losing the Plaintiff’s membership, by applying mutatis mutandis Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act, the Plaintiff’s exercise of the right to claim sale, and cancelled the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the instant real estate by applying mutatis mutandis under Article 39 of the said Act, and as a result of sale on August 12, 2013, the date following the completion date of the first application for parcelling-out, which is the first application for parcelling-out, was conducted as preliminary reasons for sale on

B. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant was able to maintain its membership at the time when the defendant lost its membership.