1. As to the defendant C's housing redevelopment project association, the qualification for the partner's purchase application and the relocation expenses of the lawsuit in this case shall be verified.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant C Housing Redevelopment Development and Rearrangement Project Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) is an association established to carry out a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) by setting the size of 12,607.5 square meters per head of Dong-gu, Busan as a rearrangement zone.

B. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Plaintiff is a de facto owner of an unauthorized building on the land of 43 square meters located in the Busan East-gu E-do, Busan-gu, where the Defendant Cooperative is located in the instant rearrangement zone (the housing of 38 square meters, the housing of 27.2 square meters, the housing of 27.2 square meters, the housing of 3 stories, the housing of 11.6 square meters, the one-story toilet of 1st floor, the one-story boiler room of 0.8 square meters, the second floor boiler room of 2 stories, and the one-story toilet of 3.2 square meters, etc. (hereinafter

C. On September 29, 2016, the Defendant Union rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion, recognized F as the owner of the instant building, established a management and disposal plan with the content that it is subject to sale, and obtained authorization of the management and disposal plan from the head of the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Defendant Dong-dong”) on September 29, 2016, and the head of the Defendant Dong-dong was publicly notified on October 5, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, each entry of Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant association is entitled to membership as a de facto owner of an unauthorized building.

On November 25, 2014, G, the original acquisitor of the instant building, ordered the Plaintiffs to prepare a letter of abandonment of the instant building on November 25, 2014, and thus, the actual owner of the instant building was the Plaintiffs.

Nevertheless, the defendant union acknowledged the F as a member without recognizing the plaintiffs who are actually owners of the building of this case as a member.

As such, since the Defendants are dissatisfied with the status of the Plaintiffs’ members, the Plaintiffs have a benefit to verify against the Defendants that they are in the representative status of the Plaintiff A and that they are eligible for application for parcelling-out as an association member, and seek confirmation of

The Plaintiffs are “Relocation allowance.”