조합원지위확인
1. The plaintiffs confirm that they are several buyers as the defendant's members.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is a maintenance and improvement project association that is established with the size of 11,16.9 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a project implementation district.
The owners or persons with superficies of the land or buildings in the project implementation district above (hereinafter “owners of land, etc.”) are 343 owners, and the Plaintiffs are owners of land, etc. in the project implementation district above.
B. On June 26, 2015, the Defendant obtained authorization from the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the implementation of a project, with the content of constructing business facilities (offices) of six underground floors and 712 households and sales facilities (offices) of 18 stories above ground within the said project implementation district.
During the period from June 8, 2016 to August 8, 2016, the Defendant notified the owners of land, etc. that the application for parcelling-out should be made to the owners of land, etc., and that the qualification of the association members should be lost if the application for parcelling-out is not
C. The Plaintiffs filed an application for parcelling-out to the Defendant on July 2016 and August 2016, 2016 (Plaintiff C around October 2016), but there were defects such as defective entries in the application for parcelling-out submitted by the Plaintiffs.
On October 2016, the defendant notified the plaintiffs to the early police officer that the plaintiffs lost their membership and became eligible for cash settlement on the grounds that the plaintiffs' application for parcelling-out was defective.
(hereinafter “Notification of this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The relevant statutes and the Defendant’s articles of incorporation are as shown in attached Form 3.
3. The assertion and judgment
A. The summary of the party's assertion 1) Although there are minor errors or omissions in the written application for parcelling-out submitted by the plaintiffs, this is a minor defect that can sufficiently be well grounded or supplemented, and it cannot be viewed as a serious defect that may not be treated as an application for parcelling-out. The plaintiffs still are in the status of the defendant's member as the number of buyers.