1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the defendant added a judgment as to the assertion added by the court of first instance as to this case, the reasoning of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant asserts that he renounces his membership and is entitled to compensation in the position of a cash clearing agent.

According to Article 73 (1) 2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, a project implementer shall consult on compensation for land, buildings, or other rights within 90 days from the following day after the management and disposal plan has been authorized and publicly announced as to the owner of land, etc. who has withdrawn the application for parcelling-out before the expiration of the period for parcelling-out. The term "person who has withdrawn the application for parcelling-out" refers to a person who has not withdrawn the application for parcelling-out within the period for parcelling-out within the period for application for parcelling-out, but has not withdrawn it before the expiration of the period for the application for parcelling-out under Article 73 (1) 1 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, as well as a person

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du17936, Dec. 22, 2011). The fact that the Defendant has already filed an application for parcelling-out within the period for parcelling-out and became a member of the Plaintiff is as seen earlier. According to the evidence No. 9, it is apparent that the period for application for parcelling-out, which is extended by the Plaintiff, has already been terminated until September 25, 2017. Thus, the Defendant is unable to withdraw the application for parcelling-out at will and acquire the status of cash liquidation.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant cannot get a loan for moving expenses.