2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Defendant is a person residing in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and 889 lots of land (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”), who obtained authorization to establish a housing redevelopment project from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on March 5, 2009 for the purpose of implementing a housing redevelopment project; and a housing redevelopment project partnership that obtained authorization to implement the project on June 20, 2013; and the Plaintiff is a person residing in the unauthorized Building (hereinafter “instant unauthorized Building”) constructed on the ground of 10 square meters in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D large scale 73 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant established a management and disposal plan without recognizing the Plaintiff as a member and without granting an opportunity for application for parcelling-out, and obtained the authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on February 24, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7, 8, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a case where the redevelopment association denies the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case as a partner of the person who asserts that he is the partner, the person who asserts that he is the partner has the benefit of seeking confirmation against the partnership as a partner by removing any risks or omissions existing in his rights or legal status.

As the management and disposition plan became final and conclusive, the above legal principles on the interest of the lawsuit do not vary.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Nu14606 delivered on February 5, 199). Inasmuch as the Defendant established a management and disposal plan without recognizing the Plaintiff as a member and without granting an opportunity to apply for parcelling-out, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation of the status of a member against the Defendant through the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is lawful.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff purchased the building of this case without permission around October 1967 and owned it until now.