beta
Text
1. The intermediate confirmation of this case shall be dismissed.
2. All of the lawsuits against the principal claim in this case.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. 1) The Defendant Cooperative consisting of sectional owners for reconstruction of G apartment units and D apartment units, which are apartment units E, C, and F, in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, and Sungnam-gu, and Sungnam-gu, and obtained authorization for establishment from the Sungnam-gu, on November 5, 2002. At the time, the Plaintiff is only the said D apartment No. 501 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
(2) The Defendant Union obtained the approval of the business plan on June 30, 2003 from the Sungnam market, and the approval of the modification of the business plan on November 26, 2003, contracted the removal of existing apartment units and new construction of new apartment units to Defendant HoS Construction, from February 2004, the removal work was conducted since October 2004, and the new construction work was conducted since October 204.
3) Defendant GaS Construction is a H apartment (hereinafter “new apartment”) around July 20, 2007.
The construction of new apartment units was completed. The Defendant Union received the authorization of completion of the improvement project from the Sungnam market on July 24, 2007, and the notification was made before September 2007. The Defendant Association received the application for parcelling-out from the members for the sale of newly-built apartment units, and conducted the drawing of the same class for the applicants for parcelling-out at the special meeting held on April 24, 2004. The Plaintiff applied for parcelling-out on April 16, 2004. The Plaintiff participated directly in the above special meeting and participated in the lot, and thereby, the Plaintiff was determined as “14 Dong 1202,” and the same number of the apartment units sold to the Plaintiff was “14-dong 1202,” and the Defendant Union did not consent to the reconstruction of the new apartment units as “the reconstruction of the new apartment units to the reconstruction of the new apartment units before the general meeting on March 8, 2003, the Plaintiff Association did not consent to the reconstruction of the reconstruction of the new apartment units.