1. The plaintiffs confirm that they are members of the defendant's association.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a market improvement project cooperative (hereinafter “market improvement project district”) established to promote a market improvement project in which the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 11,116.9 square meters is a project implementation district (hereinafter “instant project implementation district”) as a project implementation district (hereinafter “market development project district”).

(Article 2 Subparag. 9) obtained authorization to establish an association from the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on August 24, 2010.

The Plaintiffs are the owners of land or buildings within the project implementation district of the instant case.

B. On June 26, 2015, the Defendant obtained authorization from the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the implementation of a project, with the content of constructing business facilities (offices) with six underground floors and 712 households and sales facilities (offices) with the scale of 18 floors above ground within the project implementation district of the instant case.

During the period from June 8, 2016 to August 8, 2016, the Defendant notified the owners of land, etc. (including the Plaintiff) that the application for parcelling-out should be made and that the eligibility of the association members should be lost if the application for parcelling-out is not made within the period.

C. The Plaintiffs filed an application for parcelling-out with the Defendant at the end of July 2016 or at the beginning of August 2016.

On October 2016, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiffs on the early October 2016 that “The Plaintiff was disqualified as a member and became a person subject to cash settlement” (hereinafter “instant notice”), since there are defects such as defective entries in the application form for parcelling-out submitted by the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 and 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The relevant statutes and the Defendant’s articles of incorporation are as shown in attached Form 3.

3. The assertion and judgment

A. The purport of the parties’ assertion is 1) The Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

A person who fails to file an application for parcelling-out in accordance with Article 47 (1) shall apply for parcelling-out.