1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on May 4, 2018 rejecting the correction of the indication on the building ledger shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 6, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the second floor housing in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) and currently is located within the housing reconstruction and improvement project zone implemented by the CHousing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Union”).

The total area of each floor with the main purpose of structural structure and sapment and 24.13 square meters in total and 85.62 square meters in total and 163.30 square meters in total and 163.30 square meters in 24.13 square meters in underground floors.

B. The approval date of the use of the instant building was October 6, 1977, and the use of the instant building was indicated as “house” in the house ledger on the instant building.

However, the main purpose of the building of this case was indicated as “house” as indicated below in the building ledger (hereinafter “former building ledger”) but the main purpose of the building of this case was not stated separately in the present status of the building.

Housing with 25.62 stories and 52 stories and 53.55 households with 24.13 stories and 24.62 stories, each floor of the current status of each building.

C. On October 4, 2011, the Defendant implemented a rearrangement project based on the basic data on the building ledger. The building ledger prepared accordingly (hereinafter “former building ledger”) include the portion of the present building status as indicated below, and the use of the underground floor portion is a blank figure.

On July 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the correction of the use of underground floors on the current building ledger as a house on the ground that the use of the underground floor of 24.13 square meters of the instant building was a house since the construction of the instant building, notwithstanding that the use of the said part was omitted in the current building ledger.

E. On July 13, 2017, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for permission to engage in an act because it constitutes an application for change of the purpose of use of a building. In this case, the Plaintiff’s opinion is heard from the project implementer, but the partnership did not consent thereto.