1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant was a cooperative established to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project in the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant business zone”) and was permitted to establish an association on November 18, 2008.

The Plaintiff owns an unauthorized Building on the ground of Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City D, which is located within the instant business area.

B. After obtaining authorization to implement a project on September 28, 2017, the Defendant publicly announced the period for application for parcelling-out as from November 25, 2017 to January 3, 2018, and notified the members including the Plaintiff for parcelling-out.

On December 27, 2017, the Defendant made a public announcement of the period for application for parcelling-out by January 20, 2018, and notified its members again.

C. The plaintiff was notified of the application for parcelling-out from the defendant and the extension of the application period for parcelling-out, but did not apply for parcelling-out within the application period

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, Eul's 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On January 19, 2018, the Plaintiff’s husband E attempted to apply for the parcelling-out on behalf of the Plaintiff, but the Defendant’s employees did not apply for the parcelling-out on the grounds that there was no source of confirmation of an unauthorized building. The Plaintiff attempted to apply for the parcelling-out on January 22, 2018, but the Defendant’s employees did not receive the application for parcelling-out on the grounds that the period of application for parcelling-out was expired. (ii) January 19, 2018, when the period of application for parcelling-out was expired. Therefore, even if the documents were insufficient, the Defendant first received the Plaintiff’s application for parcelling-out, and subsequently requested the Plaintiff to correct the unauthorized Building Confirmation Board.

Therefore, the defendant's rejection of the application for parcelling-out is an infringement of the plaintiff's right to apply for parcelling-out, and the plaintiff is not the plaintiff's member.

B. In full view of the facts stated in No. 6 No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant's judgment 1 is the defendant.