1. The plaintiff confirms that the buyer is the defendant's member status.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a maintenance and improvement project association that has established the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government 11,16.9 square meters as a project implementation district.

The owners or persons with superficies of the land or buildings in the project implementation district above (hereinafter “owners of land, etc.”) are 343 owners, and the Plaintiff is the owners of the land, etc. in the project implementation district above.

B. On June 26, 2015, the Defendant obtained authorization from the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the implementation of a project, with the content of constructing business facilities (offices) of six underground floors and 712 households and sales facilities (offices) of 18 stories above ground within the said project implementation district.

During the period from June 8, 2016 to August 8, 2016, the Defendant notified the owners of land, etc. that the application for parcelling-out should be made to the owners of land, etc., and that the qualification of the association members should be lost if the application for parcelling-out is not

C. On July 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for parcelling-out with the Defendant.

On October 5, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was disqualified as a member and became a person subject to cash settlement on the ground that there was a defect in the error in the desired use and the size of the room, the clerical error in the opinion wishing to be omitted, and the attachment of the written consent of the co-owner.

(hereinafter “Notification of this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence 1 to 3, Eul’s evidence 1 and 6, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The relevant statutes and the articles of incorporation of the defendant are as shown in the attached statutes;

3. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the party's assertion 1) Although there are minor errors or omissions in the written application for parcelling-out submitted by the plaintiff, this is a minor defect that can sufficiently be well grounded or supplemented, and it cannot be deemed as a serious defect that may not be treated as an application for parcelling-out. The plaintiff still holds the defendant's membership as a buyer. 2) The plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out as a person subject to cash liquidation under Article 47 (1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter "Urban Improvement Act").