1. The defendant shall deliver the building as stated in the attached Form to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the Claimant A’s evidence Nos. 1 through 10, the facts as to the grounds for the claim can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building stated in the attached Form to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. First, the Defendant: (a) designated and publicly announced the time limit for resettlement on November 17, 2017 from December 15, 2017 to February 14, 2018; and (b) asserted that filing of the instant lawsuit prior to the expiration of the time limit for resettlement was unreasonable; (c) however, it is apparent that the time limit for resettlement has expired as of the closing of argument in the instant case, and thus, the foregoing assertion is without merit.

B. Next, the Defendant asserts that: (i) the Plaintiff’s failure to re-establish a management and disposal plan by reflecting the current status of application for parcelling-out goes against Article 48 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents; (ii) the articles of incorporation stipulating that project funds shall be collected from a cash clearing subject is contrary to Articles 60 and 61 of the said Act; and (iii) the present court 2017Guhap13016 case at this court seeking confirmation of the status of union members; and (iv) the instant court 2017Guhap5107 case (2017Guhap12983 case) seeking confirmation of confirmation of the change of the management and disposal plan is underway; and (iv) filing the instant lawsuit without giving the Defendant an opportunity to become a cash clearing subject by withdrawing from

(1) As there is no evidence that the revised approval of the management and disposition plan on September 21, 2017 did not reflect the current status of the application for parcelling-out, the argument in Paragraph (i) above is without merit. The defendant submitted an application for parcelling-out on March 31, 2017, as the owner of the building stated in the attached Form, as the defendant has the status of a member, and the above clause (ii) and (iv) are without merit. The argument in paragraphs (ii) and (iv) is without merit. • there is no evidence that the revised approval of the management and disposition plan on September 21, 2017 is deemed invalid (this Court Decision 2017Guhap1301

(iii) above c).