1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion was made to the defendant as the defendant's members by filing an application for parcelling-out with the defendant, and 302 Dong 1502.

However, the defendant did not properly guide the plaintiff about the procedure for concluding the sales contract, and did not conclude the sales contract, and the plaintiff arbitrarily classified the plaintiff as a cash liquidation and sold the above apartment to the third party.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to return the unjust enrichment gained therefrom.

2. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in each of the statements in Eul 5-1, 2, Eul 6, 7, Eul 8-1 through 5, Eul 9-1 and 2, the defendant's first approval of the management and disposition plan on May 16, 2008 and thereafter from August 17, 201, after obtaining the first approval of the management and disposition plan on May 16, 2008

8. An application for parcelling-out shall be filed by setting the period for concluding a contract for parcelling-out until March 9, 2012, and the same year from April 19, 2012 after obtaining authorization for an amendment to a management and disposal plan on March 9, 2012;

4. The fact that until September 25, 201, the period for concluding the contract for parcelling-out has been fixed as the period for concluding the contract for parcelling-out, and the defendant urged again the members who did not conclude the contract for parcelling-out including the plaintiff from May 2012 to September 9 of the same year to conclude the contract for parcelling-out, and notified them on September 28, 2012 and November 23 of the same year, the plaintiff did not conclude the contract for parcelling-out until then; however, the defendant's articles of incorporation provide for cash settlement if members do not conclude the contract for parcelling-out within a certain period.

In light of this, it cannot be deemed unfair that the Defendant classified the Plaintiff as the object of cash settlement due to the failure to conclude the contract for sale in lots, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit without need to further examine.