beta
Text
1. All claims filed by Plaintiffs (Appointeds), Appointeds C, and Appointeds D are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 30, 2003, the Defendant was established for the purpose of implementing a reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant project”) with the members of the Nam-gu B apartment owners as its members. On June 16, 2005, the Plaintiff was authorized to implement a reconstruction project. The Plaintiff owned the real estate listed in Attachment 2 List 1, the Selection C, and the Selection D owned the real estate listed in Paragraph 2, and the real estate listed in Paragraph 3 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and the Selection D owned each of the real estate listed in Paragraph 3 (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”), and agreed to the resolution of the instant project and became its members.
B. On September 11, 2010, the Defendant held a general meeting (hereinafter “instant general meeting”) holding a resolution on the amendment of the management and disposition plan as an agenda, and the general meeting passed a resolution on the amendment of the management and disposition plan (hereinafter “instant management and disposition plan”). According to the management and disposition plan (hereinafter “instant management and disposition plan”), the Defendant’s free share ratio of the Defendant’s union members was set at 84.7% to 62.31%, and among which, the Plaintiff’s free share ratio was set at 82.84%.
C. The Defendant, according to the management and disposal plan, announced the period of application for parcelling-out as from December 17, 2010 to the 20th day of the same month, and changed the contract to the 24th day of the same month. The Plaintiff et al. became a person subject to cash settlement because it did not conclude a contract for parcelling-out during the
On April 11, 2011, the Defendant made an appraisal by recommending two appraisal companies to make an appraisal by recommending two appraisal companies. On May 25, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff, etc. of the amount of cash liquidation in accordance with the result of the appraisal, sent a written notice of consultation on the calculation of the amount of liquidation over several occasions, but did not reach an agreement.
E. On December 29, 2011, the Defendant: (a) calculated by deducting the relocation expenses from the average amount of the appraisal result from the foregoing as a result of the assessment; (b) Ulsan District Court No. 5322 through 2011.