1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 25, 2007, the Defendant is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project on the land of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 283,260.7 square meters, and the Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate in the attached list in the above project area (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. After receiving an authorization from the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on September 4, 2007, the Defendant received an application for parcelling-out from its members to October 6, 2007, setting the period for application for parcelling-out from September 6, 2007 to October 6, 2007, and the Plaintiff applied for parcelling-out within the said period for parcelling-out.

C. However, when the management and disposal plan approved after the project implementation authorization was revoked by the ruling on June 26, 2008, the Defendant obtained approval for the implementation of the project from the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on November 7, 201, and re-designated the period for application for parcelling-out from November 9, 201 to December 11 of the same year (hereinafter “instant period for application for parcelling-out”). D.

On December 8, 201, without filing an application for parcelling-out during the period of application for parcelling-out, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant an intention to withdraw the previous application for parcelling-out and to liquidate cash. On January 10, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for a prompt application for adjudication on the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant application for adjudication”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion does not file an application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out or is eligible for cash liquidation by withdrawing the application for parcelling-out, the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to reach an agreement by refusing consultation for cash liquidation without recognizing the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the application for parcelling-out. As such, the Defendant’s real estate on January 10, 2012 shall be the