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

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a market improvement project association established to promote a market improvement project in which the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Mapo-gu 11,116.9 square meters is a project implementation district (hereinafter “project implementation district of this case”) (hereinafter “traditional Market Act”).

(Article 2 Subparag. 9) obtained authorization to establish an association from the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on August 24, 2010.

The Plaintiff is the owner of land or building within the project implementation district of the instant case.

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) with six underground floors and 712 households and sales facilities (offices) with the scale of 18 floors above ground within the project implementation district of the instant case.

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

C. On August 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for parcelling-out on commercial buildings and officetels.

On October 2016, the Defendant issued a notification to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant notification”), stating that “The application for parcelling-out submitted by the Plaintiff is not indicated in the use of the commercial building, and there is a defect without the consent of other co-owners in relation to the application for parcelling-out of officetels, so the Plaintiff becomes disqualified as an association member and became a person subject to cash settlement.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 6, the purport of the whole 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 purport of the parties’ assertion is 1) The Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

A person who fails to file an application for parcelling-out in accordance with Article 47 (1) shall submit an application for parcelling-out.