1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is a cooperative established to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project in the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government O Group, and the plaintiffs are the members of the defendant's association.

B. On March 27, 2015, the Defendant held a general meeting on March 27, 2015 and resolved to appoint G as auditor, H, I, J, K, L as director, M, and N.

(hereinafter referred to as the "resolution of this case"). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 (Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to whether the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is legitimate, the defendant sought confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of this case against the defendant, as stated in the purport of the claim, since the plaintiffs failed to apply for parcelling-out as to the reconstruction project of this case and lost their membership, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

It is reasonable to see that a member who became an object of cash settlement falls under the requirements prescribed by Article 47 of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, such as failing to apply for parcelling-out or withdrawing an application for parcelling-out, or the articles of association or management and disposal plan, and thus, the member who became an object of cash settlement shall lose his status as the member. In this case, the point of loss of the member's status shall be the same as the base point of assessing the time when a cash settlement relationship has been established in a reconstruction project and the obligation to pay the liquidation money of the association arises and the value of rights, such as land due to cash settlement. Therefore, the member who did not make an application for parcelling-out within the period

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da81203, Aug. 19, 2010; 201Du17936, Dec. 22, 2011). In full view of the entries in evidence No. 11, the Defendant’s primary assertion is the same.