조합원지위 확인등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Defendant is, on October 4, 2016, the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the purpose of implementing a housing redevelopment and improvement project for the land 49,646.4 square meters (hereinafter “instant project zone”), land located in Seonam-si (hereinafter “instant project zone”), and the D Housing Association (hereinafter “D Association”) acquired the ownership of one square meters of road E (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. The Defendant received the application for parcelling-out from the members from September 25, 2017 to October 28, 2017. The Plaintiff, the president of the D Association, obtained the consent of the D Association executives’ meeting on October 20, 2017, and applied for parcelling-out to the Defendant on October 27, 2017 (hereinafter “instant application for parcelling-out”). However, the Defendant requested the D Association to submit supplementary documents of “the minutes of the general meeting” of the members’ meeting in order for the D Association, a non-corporate group, to file an application for parcelling-out, and did not accept the instant application for parcelling-out.
C. The D Union sold the instant land to the Plaintiff on December 20, 2017, without submitting a supplement of the general meeting minutes of the Plaintiff’s meeting, which can be known that there was a resolution of the general meeting of the association members for application for parcelling-out upon the Defendant’s request. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land on December 26, 2017.
On July 30, 2018, the Defendant established a management and disposal plan that includes the details of the designation of the D Association as a person subject to cash settlement, and obtained authorization from the Mayor of the subordinate city on the above management and disposal plan, and publicly notified as F of the said management and disposal plan on the same day.
Of the above management and disposition plan, the plaintiff defendant does not dispute that the plaintiff succeeded to the status of a person in charge of cash clearing from D. The part that determined Eul as the person in charge of cash clearing is "the disposition in this case."
(3) [No. 1. 1.].