Confirmation, etc. of the status of sale right 2006Gahap20651

X ( November 4, 200)

Suwon-si

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Lee In-bok

An apartment reconstruction and improvement project cooperative;

Suwon-si Suwon-si

Head of partnership

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Lee In-bok

August 23, 2007

September 11, 2007

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

It is confirmed that, with respect to the apartment newly constructed on the ground located in the land located in the Young-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, according to the authorization of housing reconstruction project conducted by the defendant of the Gu office on December 31, 2004, the plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter the plaintiff) has the right to purchase each unit among the 27 households in the reserved land.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant held an inaugural general meeting on June 30, 201 and approved the rules of the association by 2,073 members of the housing association from the original market on the same day after re-building resolution by 2,073 members of the housing association from May 16, 2002, and the plaintiff and the designated members of the housing association (hereinafter the plaintiffs and the designated members of the housing association) are the members of the sectional owners of the 2,820 households and the 98 households in the land [number omitted] located in Suwon-si (the name of the Young-gu) located in the area of the land (the land omitted).

B. The Defendant completed the drawing on June 13, 2005 for its members upon authorization for the implementation of the project and authorization for the management and disposal plan, and the process is as listed below.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

C. After the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out notified by the Defendant for parcelling-out (X, Y, Z – W on May 28, 2005 - Q- on June 1, 2005). However, the Defendant did not apply for parcelling-out within the period for application for parcelling-out and claimed cash settlement for the portion of the Plaintiffs.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 3-1 through 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 7-1 through 3, the whole purport of pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserts to the following purport. In other words, Article 38 of the Management and Disposal Plan of the Rules of the Defendant Association requires the association to submit an application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out determined and notified by the association, and Article 38 of the Management and Disposal Plan shall be applied to the association within the period of application for parcelling-out, and where the association members do not apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out, the proviso to paragraph (4) shall not apply to the case where the association members file an application for parcelling-out by the day immediately before the date of drawing-out. However, the plaintiffs have the right to sell one household among 27 households in reserved land, as the plaintiffs have been cured of defects in which the application for parcelling-out has not been filed within the period

B. Determination

First, before the date of drawing lots of Dong and heading, the plaintiffs who did not apply for the application within the period of application for parcelling-out

The proviso of Article 38 (4) of the Rules of the defendant's association (Evidence 2) provides that "if a partner fails to apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out, in principle, the partner's share may be settled in cash, but if the partner fails to apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out, the partner can arbitrarily choose whether to enter into a contract for parcelling-out or to make cash settlement, and pursuant to the above provisions, the right to parcel out shall not be necessarily created to the partner who applied for parcelling-out prior to the date of drawing-out of the unit and unit."

Therefore, based on the above provision, the plaintiffs' claim of this case based on the premise that the right of sale exists naturally, is without merit without further examining the remaining points.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge

Judges

Judges

【Omission of Selection List】