1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is, on February 25, 2009, a housing redevelopment and consolidation project partnership which was authorized by the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the head of Eunpyeong-gu”) on February 25, 2009 for the purpose of implementing a housing redevelopment project in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 43,938 square meters, and the Plaintiff is a member of the network D (the deceased on October 29, 2015, hereinafter “the deceased”).

B. After obtaining authorization to implement the project on September 15, 201 from the head of Eunpyeong-gu, the Defendant completed the procedure for application for parcelling-out by setting the period for application for parcelling-out from October 19, 2015 to November 30, 201, after obtaining authorization to implement the project on October 1, 2015.

C. The deceased and the deceased’s successors, including the plaintiff, did not apply for parcelling-out during the period of the above application for parcelling-out, and the defendant established a management and disposal plan by classifying the deceased as persons subject to cash settlement (hereinafter “instant management and disposal plan”), and obtained authorization from the head of Eunpyeong-gu on October 13, 2016, and the head of Eunpyeong-gu publicly announced it on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 3-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 4-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the deceased died on October 29, 2015 and his heir, including the Plaintiff, did not apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out because there is no yellow situation, such as holding a funeral. However, the Defendant classified the deceased as a person subject to cash settlement and deprived of his/her membership, which is unlawful as it unfairly deprived of his/her membership, and thus, the Plaintiff is seeking confirmation of the Plaintiff’s membership.

B. In a lawsuit for confirmation of confirmation, there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine by the confirmation judgment the Plaintiff’s legal status is at risk of apprehension.