1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the Housing Redevelopment Development Project Association established with the approval of establishment on April 7, 2010 for the purpose of implementing a housing redevelopment improvement project in the rearrangement zone of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 58,367 square meters, and the Plaintiff was an association member who owned an unauthorized building within the above rearrangement zone.

B. On July 15, 2015, the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government notified the Defendant of the change of the project implementation on July 8, 2015.

On July 22, 2015, the Defendant announced the application period for parcelling-out as 33 days from July 23, 2015 to August 24, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the first application period for parcelling-out”); on August 25, 2015, the Defendant publicly announced that the application period for parcelling-out will be extended from August 25, 2015 to September 13, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the first application period for parcelling-out”); and on September 14, 2015, the Defendant was publicly notified that the application period for parcelling-out will be extended from September 14, 2015 to September 30, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the second application period for parcelling-out”). The application period is extended and received during the said period.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for parcelling-out during the period of the first application for parcelling-out and the period of the first extension of the application for parcelling-out.

On March 22, 2016, according to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s response that the period for application for parcelling-out may be extended only once to the Plaintiff, the Defendant was given administrative guidance to the members who applied for parcelling-out during the second extended period of application for parcelling-out and to reflect this in the establishment of the management and disposition plan, and notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff’s membership and the right of parcelling-out are not recognized.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 4, 5, Gap's 3-1, 2, Eul's 2, and Eul's 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is that the second extension period is applied for the following reasons.