감정평가업자 선정의 무효확인
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of "the 7th judgment of the first instance" to "the 7th judgment" under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
【On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that since the Plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out by October 16, 2014, which is the period for filing an application for parcelling-out and lost its membership as an association member, the Defendant’s appraisal procedure under the premise that the Plaintiff still remains null and void. According to Article 47 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, for those who did not apply for parcelling-out and those who did not apply for parcelling-out before the expiration of the period for filing an application for parcelling-out and those who withdrawn the application for parcelling-out before the expiration of the period for filing an application for parcelling-out, the Plaintiff shall liquidate the land, buildings, or other rights in cash within 90 days from the date following the date on which the management and disposal plan is authorized. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff lost its membership due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file an application for parcelling-out as alleged by the Plaintiff, it
2. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case against the defendant is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.