1. The plaintiff is the defendant's member.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 16, 2006, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 92.25/369 shares among Suwon-si C (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant is a cooperative established to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project (hereinafter “instant project”) whose business area covers 171,625 square meters in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si D, and obtained authorization for the establishment on January 6, 2010 from the Suwon-si, and obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on December 11, 2015.

C. On February 19, 2016, the Defendant notified the members of the application for parcelling-out, notified the members of the application for parcelling-out on April 4, 2016, and notified them to the members on April 4, 2016. On April 8, 2016, the notice of extension of the application period for parcelling-out was returned by regular mail. D.

Until the extended period for application for parcelling-out, the plaintiff is not the applicant for parcelling-out, and the defendant has formulated a management and disposal plan to determine the plaintiff as a cash liquidation partner (hereinafter referred to as the "management and disposal plan

On December 13, 2016, the plaintiff raised an objection to the defendant on December 13, 2016 and confirmed that he wishes to apply for parcelling-out, but the defendant responded that he could not reflect the plaintiff's desire to apply for parcelling-out.

E. On March 23, 2017, the Suwon City approved the instant management and disposal plan, and announced it on March 27, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for confirmation of membership

A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff failed to issue a notice of application for parcelling-out to the plaintiff's actual domicile, and the plaintiff was unable to receive it. Therefore, even if the plaintiff declared an intention of application for parcelling-out with the period of application for parcelling-out, its intention is valid, and the plaintiff is in the status of the defendant's member, and the defendant is legally entitled to obtain confirmation.