1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except where the defendant added an additional decision as to the contents mainly asserted in the appellate court.

(main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. The attached parts

A. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff union failed to notify of the previous asset assessment amount of the real estate of this case at the time of the application for parcelling-out and demanded correction. However, the plaintiff union did not apply for parcelling-out as an indication of this paragraph because the plaintiff union did not take measures unfairly, and even though the plaintiff union did not apply for parcelling-out, the plaintiff union classified the defendant to whom the plaintiff company applied for parcelling-out as the object of cash settlement.

Therefore, although the defendant raised an objection and requested for the application for parcelling-out, the plaintiff union is refused to do so, which is unfair, and the defendant still has the status of a member of the plaintiff union.

Plaintiff

It is not permissible to file a lawsuit claiming the sale of the real estate of this case with a union due to the following procedural defects.

① The Plaintiff Union shall proceed with the procedure for application for parcelling-out after one year or more from the date of public announcement of project implementation authorization, and the period of commencement of procedure (within 60 days from the date of public announcement) under Article 46(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

② At the time of filing the application for parcelling-out, the Plaintiff Union did not notify the Defendant of the assessed value of the previous assets, which is the core of the charges.

Even if the Defendant lost its membership, the adequate cash settlement value of the real estate of this case should be fully reflected in the development gains arising from the reconstruction project of this case.

In other words, on October 22, 2015, the Plaintiff Union was terminated by the process of sale in general.