1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association that obtained authorization for establishment from the government market on August 26, 201 under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents in order to implement a B-house redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant project”) which designates the Gu Council Member C as a project implementation district.

B. Around the above time, the Plaintiff owned Da Government-si and 3 lots E Building F in the instant project zone.

C. On April 3, 2014, the Defendant received an authorization to implement the project from the Government Mayor, and received the application for parcelling-out from the members from April 23, 2014 to June 19, 2014. The Plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out within the said period.

On December 8, 2015, the construction plan of rental housing in the government B housing redevelopment improvement plan was amended and announced in line with the plan.

Accordingly, the defendant also changed the project implementation plan and reported it to the Government Mayor (minor change). On December 15, 2015, the report was processed.

E. The Defendant formulated a management and disposal plan including the content of classifying the Plaintiff as a person subject to cash settlement (hereinafter “instant management and disposal plan”), and obtained authorization from the Jung-gu mayor on May 29, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out according to the initial project implementation plan and did not determine that there was no feasibility according to the project implementation plan, and there was a lot of additional charges, and thereby lost its membership.

However, the rental housing ratio has been alleviated from 17% to 5% due to a change in a later project implementation plan, which is not a change in minor matters, so it is necessary to go through a resolution of the general meeting and make a public announcement again.

However, the defendant shall do so.