2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project with a scale of 232,885 square meters in Busan Dong-gu, Busan Metropolitan City as a project implementation district, and the Plaintiff is the owner of land and a house with a scale of 864 square meters in Busan Dong-gu, Busan Metropolitan City and a house with a scale of 102.

B. The Defendant sent a written guidance for application for parcelling-out to the Plaintiff on September 11, 2014 and October 2 of the same year after the public notice of project implementation approval as of September 3, 2014, on two occasions. The Defendant’s employee E was directly interviewed with the Plaintiff on September 23, 2014, and October 10 of the same year, but the Plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out to the Defendant within the period of application for parcelling-out (from September 17, 2014 to October 16, 2014).

C. The Defendant established a management and disposal plan to exclude the Plaintiff from sale, and the head of the Busan Metropolitan City Dong-gu Office approved the above management and disposal plan and announced it on the 29th of the same month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 6 evidence, Eul's 1 to 6 evidence, Eul's E's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was diagnosed with dementia since February 12, 2013, and the recognition disorder and detailed unknown dementia, and thus, it was impossible or impossible to receive the guidance for application for parcelling-out.

Therefore, the plaintiff's family members demanded the defendant to contact or deliver the plaintiff's son F on behalf of the plaintiff, but the above F did not have received a notice of application for parcelling-out.

Furthermore, even after the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the attending general meeting on the premise that the Plaintiff is a member.

Therefore, the plaintiff is still the defendant's member entitled to apply for parcelling-out.

As the defendant is disputing this, it is sought to confirm that the plaintiff is a member of the defendant.

B. According to each of the above evidence, the defendant applied for a registered application with registered mail on September 11, 2014 and on October 2 of the same year to the plaintiff on two occasions.