1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a reconstruction improvement project association which completed the registration of incorporation on October 6, 2008 with the authorization from the head of Seodaemun-gu Office on October 8, 2008 pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). The Plaintiff was authorized to implement the project for the Seoul Seodaemun-gu Seoul Seodaemun-gu project as the project implementation district on January 26, 2012.

3. 23. The application period for parcelling-out; and

5. 17. Determination and announcement of the application for parcelling-out have been made.

B. The defendant is the owner of the real estate in the attached list within the plaintiff's project implementation district (hereinafter "the real estate in this case"), and the association member agreed to the rebuilding resolution for the establishment of the plaintiff's association, but did not file an application for parcelling-out by the expiration date of the application period

C. Articles 42 and 43 of the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation provide that where a partner of the association fails to apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out, an application for parcelling-out is withdrawn, and where he is excluded from the object of parcelling-out under an authorized management and disposal plan, the structures or other rights

The market value of the instant real estate as of May 18, 2012 is KRW 180,2200,000.

[Ground of recognition] A without a dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including additional numbers), the result of a request for market price appraisal of appraiser D by the court of first instance for appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition, since the defendant did not apply for parcelling-out to the plaintiff by May 17, 2012, which is the expiration date of the period for application for parcelling-out, the defendant is deemed to have lost its status as a member at the same time as he/she becomes a person subject to cash settlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da81203, Aug. 19, 2010). Since the plaintiff served a duplicate of the complaint of this case on the defendant, who is a person subject to cash settlement, by applying Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act mutatis mutandis, the plaintiff