1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff is the defendant's member.

3. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 2, 6, and 12) is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion cannot be deemed to have lawfully performed the obligation to notify the plaintiff of the application for parcelling-out of the redevelopment project. Thus, the plaintiff is still a partner of the redevelopment project of this case, not a cash liquidation.

B. Determination 1) According to Article 46(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017); Article 47(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 28628, Feb. 9, 2018), a project implementer must notify the owners of land, etc. of the outlined charges, the period for application for parcelling-out, and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree within 60 days from the date of public announcement of project implementation. The procedure for notification of application for parcelling-out under the aforementioned provision is to guarantee the owners of land, etc. who lose ownership of land, etc. to implement an improvement project in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, and is an important element of property rights with rights to apply for parcelling-out. Therefore, the project implementer shall exercise its duty of care and duty in good faith so that its members can exercise it properly.