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

A. The Defendant is the Housing Reconstruction Project Association established to promote the Housing Reconstruction Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant project”) for the size of 33,593 square meters in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Plaintiffs are the owners of real estate located in the instant project area and are the members of the Defendant.

B. The Defendant carried out the instant project as follows.

On October 15, 2012, the approval of the establishment of a project plan on August 12, 201, which was granted on December 15, 2011, for the establishment of a management and disposal plan on June 12, 2014, which was granted on September 12, 201, of the ordinary general meeting to formulate a management and disposal plan on September 1, 2014; and on October 23, 2014, the approval of the management and disposal plan alteration plan (hereinafter referred to as the "management and disposal plan of this case") on October 23, 2014 of the ordinary general meeting to formulate a management and disposal plan for the formulation of a plan for the alteration of the management and disposal plan (hereinafter referred to as the "recognition plan of this case") has no dispute;

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The defendant is conducting the project of this case by deeming it as the application for parcelling-out after receiving only a flat-type application from the members of the association. The management and disposal plan of this case established based on illegal application for parcelling-out is unlawful. 2) The defendant did not notify the members of the amount of previous asset evaluation and the details of additional contributions at the time of the application for parcelling-out, so it is unlawful

3) The Defendant received an application for parcelling-out without stating the details of rights from the members at the time of the application for parcelling-out, and thus, the instant management and disposal plan established based thereon is also unlawful. 4) The Defendant did not receive the application for parcelling-out for commercial buildings at the time of the application for parcelling-out, and thus,

B. Determination 1 of the argument that the Defendant deemed the application for parcelling-out after receiving only a flat application, respectively, and the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 7 is written.