1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the judgment on the grounds of the disposition and the defense prior to the merits is that the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Of the instant management and disposition plan, the part on which the Plaintiff was subject to cash settlement is invalid on the following grounds. A) The Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the summary of the charges and the initial period for application for parcelling-out under Article 46(1)1 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “former Act”).

As a result, the plaintiff who was not aware of the details of the project execution plan, the period and place of application for parcelling-out, and the details of a rough charge was classified as the subject of cash settlement in the management and disposal

(B) The Defendant did not notify its members, including the Plaintiff, of the extension of the period for application for parcelling-out in accordance with the proviso of Article 46(1) of the former Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff violated the right to choose whether to apply for parcelling-out and the right to property (the second assertion). (C) The Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff in writing of all the matters provided for in Article 48(1)3 through 5 and the management and disposal plan before the general meeting for management and disposal.

Accordingly, the plaintiff violated voting rights and property rights on the management and disposition plan.

(3) On July 4, 2014, before July 7, 2014, the first filing date of the application for parcelling-out, the Defendant sent the notice of the application for parcelling-out to all members by registered mail, and the notice of the application for parcelling-out sent to the Plaintiff was not returned.

Therefore, the registered mail is sent to the Plaintiff.