1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a member of the redevelopment project promoted by the Defendant Cooperative, and applied for the application for parcelling-out for the 41-year-type apartment complex, and at least as a flat-type apartment with a single household remaining as a withholding facility, has the right to purchase it in accordance with the articles of association of the Cooperative.

Nevertheless, the defendant association rejected the plaintiff's legitimate application for parcelling-out and proposed to purchase 31 square apartment units. On January 6, 2009, the defendant association illegally sold 38 square-type apartment units to third parties.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,310,00,000, which is the market price of the Pyeongtaek apartment complex in 38 square meters as compensation for damages caused by tort or return of unjust enrichment.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion of determination is premised on the Plaintiff’s right to purchase an apartment unit of at least 38 square meters from the Defendant Cooperative, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had the above right to purchase the apartment unit of at least 38 square meters. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1 (including the provisional number), the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a decision on February 12, 2009 in 2008Guhap25920, that the plaintiff's right among the members of the defendant's association is at least 432 and the order of priority is at least 432. In order for the defendant's association to be allocated a general apartment, the order of priority is at least 87, and at least 430, the right should be at least 430, so it is difficult to deem the plaintiff to have the right to purchase a general apartment. The appeal and appeal against the above judgment are dismissed, and the above judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The plaintiff asserts that the above judgment was a judgment obtained by fraudulent means by submitting the order of priority by forgery and alteration, but it is not enough to recognize the above argument only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 7 through 9.