1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an association established for the purpose of promoting B-Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant project”), the business area of which is not less than 45,945 square meters, Nam-gu, Busan, and the Plaintiff is the owner of 79 square meters in Nam-gu, Busan, which is located within the instant business area.

B. On February 16, 2005, the Plaintiff made a move-in report to “Yansan-gu E-B-106”, but on November 21, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the move-in report to “F apartment 102-1906, Namsan-gu, Busan-gu, 102-1906,” and completed the move-in report to “Yansan-gu G building and 102” on September 29, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion was unaware of this article, and thus, the Plaintiff delegated all matters concerning the instant business to H, a fraud, and the Plaintiff’s domicile also completed the move-in report to “Seongsan-gu E Apartmentb-106, Busan, Nam-gu, which is the domicile of H.

However, in fact, the Plaintiff actually resided in the “Yansan-gu Gag-gu 102”, which is a son’s residence.

The plaintiff, the representative of the defendant, requested the head of the association, who was the plaintiff, to send postal items related to the business of this case to H's domicile when he visited the actual domicile of the plaintiff, but the defendant continued to send postal items related to the business of this case to H's domicile.

As a result, the above documents were delivered to H late, and the plaintiff was not able to file an application for parcelling-out.

The defendant is obligated to pay 59,40,000 won, which is equivalent to the difference between the general sale price and the unit sale price, to the plaintiff as damages, since property damages, such as failure to apply for parcelling-out due to the defendant's wrong mail sending.

3. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the entries in the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and Eul No. 2, the defendant obtained authorization for project implementation on April 11, 2012, followed the procedure for application for parcelling-out on April 2012, and followed the procedure for filing applications for parcelling-out on or around April 2012.