(a) the annexed list;

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 real estate in the attached list in the above rearrangement project zone (hereinafter “instant housing”) and consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association.

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 “first application for parcelling-out”); again, received an additional application for parcelling-out from April 29, 2014 to May 16, 2014 (hereinafter “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 the Plaintiff loses the status of the Plaintiff’s member because it did not file an application for parcelling-out, by applying mutatis mutandis Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act, the Plaintiff seeks to implement the procedure for transfer registration of ownership in an unregistered state and transfer of the instant housing on the ground of sale on August 12, 2013, the date following the date following the end of the second application for parcelling-out, which is the date following the date of completion of the second application for parcelling-out, based on the first application for parcelling-out by exercising the right to

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the time when the Defendant lost its membership shall be deemed to be “the time when the second application for parcelling-out is terminated,” which is the time when it was possible to maintain its membership. As such, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to include development gains as of May 17, 201 and appraised according to the selection of appropriate comparative cases.