1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The defendant's ground of appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted to this court was neglected.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court's explanation on the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment as set forth in Paragraph (2) above to the Defendant's assertion emphasized by this court or newly admitted by this court, and therefore, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. Additional determination

A. (1) According to the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) pursuant to Article 47(6) and (4) of the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation, an association member who has filed an application for parcelling-out shall also be a person subject to cash settlement in cases where the sales contract is not concluded within the period

Since the defendant clearly stated that the plaintiff will not conclude a contract for sale in the future within the period of conclusion of the contract for sale in lots by withdrawing the contract for sale in lots, the defendant also constitutes a person subject to cash settlement, and the plaintiff cannot seek delivery of each real estate of this case against the defendant without an agreement on the liquidation amount or acceptance procedure.

(2) As long as it is not confirmed that the period of application for parcelling-out designated by the Plaintiff has been designated in accordance with the lawful procedure and method, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have withdrawn the application for parcelling-out.

(3) The Plaintiff’s claim for the delivery of each of the instant real estate without undergoing the procedures for concluding the sales contract within a considerable period after the authorization of the management and disposal plan violates the good faith principle by unfairly depriving the Defendant of the opportunity to become subject to cash settlement without concluding the sales contract in accordance with the Plaintiff’

B. (1) Determination

(1) On the assertion of paragraph (1), the project implementer’s articles of incorporation for the redevelopment project shall terminate the period for application for parcelling-out.