1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff removed previous buildings on the ground of 28,553 square meters in total area of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government KK (hereinafter “instant project zone”) and was established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), as a housing reconstruction project partnership established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), as a housing reconstruction project partnership established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents for the purpose of promoting a new housing reconstruction project that newly constructs multi-family housing, etc. on the ground,

B. Defendant C consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association as each owner of the real estate listed in the attached list No. 1 (hereinafter “real estate No. 1”); Defendant F consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association as the owner of the real estate listed in the attached list No. 2 (hereinafter “second real estate”); and the real estate Nos. 1 and 2 are located in the business

C. On December 14, 2012, the Plaintiff publicly announced the application for parcelling-out and received the application for parcelling-out from its members to January 15, 2013 for parcelling-out of a building to be newly constructed as a rearrangement project for housing reconstruction from December 17, 2012 to January 15, 2013, and thereafter extended the application period for parcelling-out on January 16, 2013 to February 4, 2013.

However, the Defendants did not apply for parcelling-out to the Plaintiff until the period of the above application for parcelling-out expires.

On November 18, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on the instant claim for the sale of each of the above real estate in accordance with Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act, and the relevant warden reached the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), Gap evidence 6-5, 6, 11, and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Where a member becomes a person subject to cash settlement due to reasons such as not applying for parcelling-out, etc., a reconstruction association shall settle in cash as a result of losing the status of an association member. Therefore, Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Sale shall apply mutatis mutandis to the request for sale.