1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Plaintiff

The main point of the argument is that the plaintiff, as the defendant's member, applied for the parcelling-out of 41 square meters as the plaintiff's member, and the defendant, as the plaintiff can sell 38 square meters, which is a legal withholding facility, silents the plaintiff's demand, operated documents in order not to sell the apartment, deprived the plaintiff of the plaintiff's right to sell the apartment by calculating the order of priority by inserting so that he did not sell the apartment, and committed a tort of selling 38 square meters in general, which is the above statutory reserving facility. Thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for damages of 1,310,000 won at the market price of the ordinary apartment.

In light of the legal principles and circumstances as seen above, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, committed a tort by selling 38 square meters at general, which is a statutory withholding facility.

On a different premise, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is difficult to accept.

The plaintiff's assertion is based on the premise that the plaintiff has the right to purchase an apartment unit of at least 38 square meters from the defendant cooperative.

The evidence and materials submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff has the above rights.

Rather, on June 26, 2008, the plaintiff et al. asserted that the plaintiff et al. had the right to purchase the 41.01-type apartment in the management and disposal plan filed against the defendant with the Seoul Administrative Court on February 20, 2008 and the lawsuit seeking the revocation or nullification of the former notification on March 25, 2008 (Seoul Administrative Court 2008Guhap25920). However, the above court rendered a judgment against the plaintiff et al. on February 12, 2009 against the plaintiff et al., and rendered a decision that it is difficult to deem that the plaintiff has the right to purchase the 41.01-type apartment in light of the order of the amount of the right as at the base date of the management and disposal plan, and the above judgment can only be recognized as finalized on January 31, 2013 through the appellate court.

① The Plaintiff is a member of the Seoul Administrative Court, which became final and conclusive through the judgment of the Seoul Administrative Court 2003Guhap4074.