1. The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff is not a member of the defendant's association.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 14, 2015, the Defendant applied for the authorization to establish a housing association on February 14, 2015, which was established to build an apartment building in the Jeju Island and sell it to its members. The Defendant obtained the authorization from the macromarket on April 28, 2015.

B. Articles 8 and 8 (Qualification Requirements for Union Members) of the Defendant’s Union Regulations (amended by April 21, 2015) (amended by the Rules of the Republic of Korea as of April 21, 2015) refer to the qualification requirements for Union members under the Housing Act,

(1) The term "household" means a householder who fails to own a house from the date of application for authorization for establishment of a housing association until the date of occupancy of the relevant housing association or has an exclusive residential area of 85 square meters or less

Provided, That where a member of a housing association temporarily loses his/her eligibility as a householder due to unavoidable reasons, such as work, disease, medical treatment, study, marriage, etc., it shall be deemed eligible.

(4) A cooperative member shall maintain a homeless qualification from the date of application for authorization to the date of occupancy, and if it is proved that he/she owns a house during the above period, he/she may not raise an objection, even if any disadvantage, such as loss, dismissal,

Article 8(1) of the Union Regulations (Evidence 2), which appears to have been provided by the Defendant to the contractor at the time of entering into a partnership agreement on November 2014, stipulated the exclusive residential area of the housing that is allowed to be owned pursuant to the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act as 60 square meters. However, the above agreement was not yet effective since the Defendant’s inaugural general meeting (as of January 28, 2015) was held, and the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act was amended on December 23, 2014, set the above area as 85 square meters, and the Defendant was also deemed to have resolved by amending the union regulations with the same content to the inaugural general meeting, as the said area was reduced as 85 square meters. Thus, this case applies to this case.