The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. We examine the reasoning of the judgment below.

The court below held that on June 25, 2007, the defendant applied for parcelling-out to the defendant for parcelling-out within the above parcelling-out period, and the defendant applied for parcelling-out sale within the above period after obtaining authorization from the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on September 4, 2007 to October 6, 2007, and the management and disposition plan of June 26, 2008, which was revoked by the above project implementation plan, the defendant applied for parcelling-out sale to the defendant on June 26, 2008 (the defendant applied for parcelling-out sale to the defendant as soon as the project implementation period was approved by the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on November 9, 201 through November 21, 201, and the plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out sale to the defendant for parcelling-out sale within the previous period of 10 days after obtaining authorization for the project implementation period from the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on November 1, 2011 to 11.2

Based on the foregoing factual basis, the lower court recognized that the Plaintiff was a person subject to cash settlement on December 12, 201, the following day after the expiration date of the application period for parcelling-out under Article 47 subparagraph 1 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), by failing to file an application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out, and therefore, recognized that the Plaintiff was a person subject to cash settlement under Article 47 subparagraph 1