The defendant is a cooperative that is implementing a market improvement project under the Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets and Shopping Districts in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the plaintiff is the land owner who owns land shares and stores listed in the attached Table 1 in the above market improvement project zone.

The defendant shall publicly announce the application for parcelling-out to its members on June 9, 2017 and the same year from June 12, 2017.

7. The plaintiff, a member of the organization to receive the application for parcelling-out (hereinafter referred to as the "application for parcelling-out") until November, did not apply for parcelling-out during the period of the application for parcelling-out.

On November 23, 2017, the Defendant formulated a management and disposition plan classified the Plaintiff as a person subject to cash settlement (hereinafter “instant management and disposition plan”), and obtained authorization from the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on December 28, 2017 from the head of the Gu.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (if there are additional numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's evidence Nos. 2, and the whole purport of the disposition plan of this case, the plaintiff defendant did not notify the plaintiff of the validity of the part concerning the plaintiff's application for parcelling-out, so the plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out.

Therefore, even if the plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out, it cannot be deemed to be a person subject to cash settlement, and there is an error of law that designates the plaintiff as a person subject to cash settlement.

In around 2015, the Plaintiff was a senior member of the 1931st old age group, and was called to the Defendant by telephone in 2015 that “the next association-related work is to contact D, his father, and D also collected the Plaintiff from the Seoul Seodaemun-gu E Apartment F, Seoul, and lived with him. It is possible to contact him on behalf of the Plaintiff who is not healthy.” Since it was stated to the Defendant, the Defendant was given a full contact with D.

The defendant is the domicile of the plaintiff on the register.