1.(a)

We confirm that the plaintiff is the defendant's member.

B. The Defendant’s February 15, 2019 shall be Incheon Metropolitan City.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 17, 2010, the Defendant is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association authorized by the head of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City head of the Si/Gun/Gu to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant project”) whose project implementation district covers 59,147 square meters of the Seoul Southern-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul.

around July 10, 2006, the Plaintiff owned D Apartment E (hereinafter “instant housing”) located in the project implementation district of this case by selling it at the auction procedure.

B. On December 11, 2017, the Defendant issued a written notice of application for parcelling-out stating the period for application for parcelling-out (from January 2, 2018 to February 20, 2018) and the place (from January 2, 2018 to February 20, 2018), the details of the project implementation authorization, the type and name of the rearrangement project, the location and size of the rearrangement zone, and the details of the site or building subject to parcelling-out, etc. to the members.

The plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out within the above period of application for parcelling-out.

C. On February 15, 2019, the Defendant established a management and disposal plan of the instant project and obtained authorization from the head of Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and this was publicly notified as H of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City public notice (hereinafter “instant management and disposal plan”), and according thereto, the Plaintiff was determined as a person subject to cash settlement.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6-1, 2, 10, 11, and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff did not follow the procedure for inspecting the resident registration record card or verifying the address of the tenant in violation of the defendant's duty of good faith, and thus, the plaintiff did not notify the plaintiff of legitimate application for parcelling-out as prescribed by the relevant statutes or the articles of incorporation, and thus, the plaintiff still maintains the