1. The plaintiff has the right to purchase multi-family housing constructed by the defendant as a housing redevelopment project B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a housing redevelopment project partnership established to implement a housing redevelopment project in the area of 104,360 square meters (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”) located in Busan Jin-gu, Busan. The Plaintiff is the owner of 56 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. In connection with the instant land, E, which is owned in contact with the instant land, had difficulties in independently constructing a house with a size of 107 square meters in Busan, Jin-gu, Busan. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and E newly constructed a two-story house on the said two sites (hereinafter “instant house”), and completed the registration of co-ownership of shares on July 24, 1995.

C. From December 4, 2014 to January 5, 2015, the Plaintiff unilaterally applied for parcelling-out to the Defendant. However, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not own any house, including the applicants for parcelling-out pursuant to the proviso to Article 22(1)2 of the Busan Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Ordinance on Maintenance”), and that the Plaintiff’s alone is not eligible for parcelling-out pursuant to Article 22(2)3.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to Article 22(1)1 of the Plaintiff’s Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Claims, “the owner of a house (including an existing unauthorized building and a building actually used for residence) among the previous buildings shall be eligible for sale.” Although the owner of an abandoned building is actually used for residential purposes, it is eligible for sale. However, it is unreasonable that the Plaintiff does not recognize the sale right despite the ownership of the instant house which was duly permitted to construct, as it does not conform to equity.

In addition, the Plaintiff far exceeds 20 square meters, which is the area stipulated in the proviso of Article 22(1)2 of the Maintenance Ordinance.