1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is a housing reconstruction and consolidation project association whose project implementation district covers the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Group C.

B. On December 21, 2012, the judgment ordering the Plaintiff to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate (hereinafter “the judgment prior to the instant lawsuit”) became final and conclusive on September 7, 2017 in the instant case where the Defendant filed a claim for sale under Article 39 of the former Urban Improvement Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017) with respect to the transfer of ownership against the Plaintiff based on the right to claim sale under Article 39 of the former Urban Improvement Act

(Seoul Western District Court 2012Kahap14098, Seoul High Court 2016Na2053655, Supreme Court 2017Da231867).

The defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership in his/her name on November 13, 2017 according to the above judgment.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul No. 7 (including a provisional number), substantial facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. Since the judgment became final and conclusive on the fact that the Defendant’s exercise of the right to demand sale against the Plaintiff was legitimate, the Plaintiff is only able to confirm the invalidity through a retrial procedure.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit has no interest in confirmation.

B. The Plaintiff’s exercise of the right to demand sale must be made within two months after the establishment of the first association. In the case of the Defendant, not only exercised the right to demand sale on December 21, 2012 after nine years from the date of the first association establishment registration, but also failed to meet the requirements for exercising the right to demand sale, such as reconstruction resolution, the peremptory notice without delay in writing, and the market price, and thus, sought nullification of the claim for sale by the Defendant

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation must be immediately removed because there is an unstable risk in rights or legal status.