The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 9, the defendant submitted an application for sale in lots to the defendant on October 16, 201 for housing reconstruction project of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C as an improvement zone under the "Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents" (hereinafter "Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents"). The plaintiff was the owner of real estate located in the above improvement zone and was the defendant's member. The defendant received an application for sale in lots from the members from September 16, 2014 to October 16, 2014 after receiving an authorization for project implementation from the head of Gangnam-gu on August 8, 2014 after receiving notification and announcement of the period for application for sale in lots, and the plaintiff submitted an application for sale in lots to the defendant on June 22, 2014 as an object of construction and disposal plan designated by the head of Gangnam-gu Office.

The plaintiff's assertion is legitimate in the plaintiff's application for parcelling-out, and even if the plaintiff's application for parcelling-out is illegal, the defendant notified that the application for parcelling-out is unlawful at the time of receiving the plaintiff's application for parcelling-out and did not take such measures. Thus, the plaintiff is in the status of selling an apartment unit to be constructed as the defendant's reconstruction project. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant that it is unfair that the defendant designated the plaintiff as the person subject to cash settlement is in the status of the purchaser of the apartment unit, and the defendant