1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on the claim for confirmation of rights of KRW 4,866,000, shall be revoked, and the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is identical to that of Paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 6 to No. 35). Thus, the court's explanation on this part is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 42

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The instant project was completed in fact by the Defendant’s resolution of dissolution at the board of representatives on June 23, 2017 by the Defendant’s resolution of dissolution, and the registration of dissolution was completed on June 23, 2017, and the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of the deceased’s heir as to the instant apartment in accordance with the transfer notification. Therefore, the confirmation that the Plaintiff is qualified as a member of the Defendant’s association

1) The Plaintiff is entitled to the Plaintiff’s refund of KRW 4,866,00 for the instant apartment complex (hereinafter “verification of the right to refund of a partner”).

(2) The instant lawsuit seeking reimbursement is unlawful as there is no benefit in confirmation, and is also unlawful as there is no benefit in confirmation, in the instant lawsuit, since the Plaintiff may file a lawsuit against the Defendant for performance seeking payment of the relevant refund amount. In this respect, there is no benefit in confirmation.

B. Determination 1) In full view of the legal interest in the lawsuit seeking confirmation of membership Gap and the purport of the entire pleadings, the transfer announcement of the instant project on October 13, 2016 (hereinafter “instant transfer announcement”) is deemed to have been made on October 13, 2016.

The fact that the registration of ownership preservation has been completed in the name of the deceased's heir with respect to the apartment of this case is recognized as mentioned above.

However, the Plaintiff independently purchased the instant apartment from the deceased, and asserted his rights accordingly, and whether the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of the deceased’s member shall be determined as the ownership of the instant apartment.