1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing the same as it is in accordance with the main sentence

However, with respect to the argument that the defendant emphasized or added by this court, the following judgments shall be added.

2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s project implementation plan and the project implementation change plan approved on May 18, 2011 and November 25, 201 to the Changwon City Mayor are null and void because it is obvious and significant that the important matters among the matters prescribed by the former Act and subordinate statutes are omitted, and thus, the Plaintiff’s management and disposition plan approved on October 16, 2017 from the Changwon City Mayor (hereinafter “instant management and disposition plan”).

(2) Article 44(5) of the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation provides that “a person who fails to conclude a sales contract” shall be subject to cash settlement, and the Plaintiff did not notify or publicly notify the members including the Defendant of the period for sales contract.

If the defendant decides that he will not conclude a contract for sale in the future within the period of contract for sale in lots, he will be entitled to the status of the person subject to settlement in cash, and prior to that, the plaintiff's claim for delivery of the building of this case can not be allowed as unfairly compelling

3) According to Articles 11(2) and 44(1) of the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation, “a person who has withdrawn the application for parcelling-out prior to the authorization of management and disposition” may become a person subject to cash settlement, and the authorization of management and disposition under this Article shall be deemed to include the authorization of changes in the management and disposition plan. However, given that the Defendant was a person subject to cash settlement by withdrawing the application for parcelling-out on May 18, 2017, which was before October 16, 2017, for which the Plaintiff obtained authorization by modifying the management and disposition plan, the Defendant has no obligation to deliver the instant building until receiving the compensation pursuant to the compensation procedure. (b) Determination 1) The relevant statutes and the former Act on Urban Improvement, which is enacted by Act No. 1457, Feb. 8, 2