1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the modification of the reasoning of the judgment as follows and adding “2. additional judgment”, and thus, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance.

[Supplementary part] Article 39(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017) provides that “Article 19(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14532, Jan. 17, 2017; hereinafter “former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”) shall be amended to “Article 19(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for

The first instance judgment’s 6 pages 12 to 13 is amended to “(the same purport is applicable)” (after the whole amendment was made by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017, Article 39(1) of the Urban Improvement Act).

I and J as married couple in the first instance judgment 7 pages 1 of the first instance judgment, the “I and J as married couple” shall be amended to “I and J as married couple.”

The judgment of the court of first instance, 7 to 8-9, “The fact that Q applied for a commercial building and allocated a divided apartment to each household under Q and R’s name,” thereby revising Q to “the fact that one household allocated a divided apartment to the union members of the same household under R’s name.”

7 pages 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance is amended to "the general prize is a co-owner of AM" as "the owner of AM."

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 12 November 12, 2015 (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is 2,544 households, and the seller is 2,552 households under the plan to alter the management and disposal plan of the Plaintiff on September 22, 2017.

However, the drawing of this case was made based on 2,52 households, the number of applicants for parcelling-out of housing, under the management and disposal plan amended on September 15, 2017, before the approval of the modification of the management and disposal plan was granted. At that point, this is illegal as it is without any grounds under the management and disposal plan

In addition, a management and disposal plan shall be formulated based on the current status of application for parcelling-out.