The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Where the articles of association or management and disposal plan of a maintenance and improvement project association established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “association”), requires its members to conclude a sales contract within a certain period after the completion of the period for application for parcelling-out, and the association stipulates that “if the contract for parcelling-out is not concluded within such period, its rights shall be liquidated in cash,” this grants an additional opportunity to leave the business by refusing to conclude the sales contract

(see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da91364, Jul. 28, 2011). The articles of incorporation or management and disposal plan stipulating the above contents mean that a cooperative requires members to conclude a sales contract, but the cooperative is subject to settlement in cash by violating its obligation to conclude a sales contract even if it demands members to do so.

(2) On May 9, 2012, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant’s Intervenor notified its members of the fact that the sales contract was concluded between August 6, 2012 and August 20, 2012, and that the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) A, the appointed party I (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the Defendant did not conclude the sales contract by the end date of the period for entering into the sales contract, as long as the Plaintiffs failed to conclude the sales contract due to the receipt of the notification of the conclusion of the sales contract, the lower court determined that the Plaintiffs did not constitute “where the sales contract was not concluded by the end date of the period for entering into the sales contract,” as stipulated by the articles of incorporation of the Defendant’s Intervenor’s cash settlement reasons.

The Defendant’s ground of appeal duly ratified the instant management and disposition plan.

In this case, it is argued that even if there is a defect in the management and disposition plan of this case, it is not invalid.