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

A. In order to implement an urban environment improvement project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “instant project”), the Defendant is an urban environment improvement project association established with the consent of at least 4/5 of the owners of the land, etc. in the area where the instant project is implemented, which was approved by the head of the Gu on December 16, 2004 from among the urban environment improvement project associations established with the consent of at least 4/5 of the owners of the land, etc. in the area where the instant project is implemented, and the main contents of written consent received from the owners, such as the land at the time of authorization for

(1) A summary of design of a new building: 8,989 square meters of site area, 69,930 square meters of total floor area, 4 stories of underground ground, 16 stories of ground, 40 million won of removal expenses, 91.488 billion won of removal expenses, 91.9 billion won of construction expenses, 27.93 billion won of construction expenses, 19.2 million won of other project expenses, 19.82 billion won of construction expenses, and 3 expenses to be borne: The expenses shall be imposed and collected according to the articles of association, and the settlement money shall be finally determined at the time of liquidation at the time of liquidation, and the contents of the association establishment and improvement project shall be modified according to the contents of the project implementation authorization, the contents of the terms of the association establishment and improvement project and the expenditure of the project expenses. If the contents are modified or adjustment of the liquidation money of association members, etc. is necessary, it shall be changed to the contents decided at the general meeting of association members later without any separate consent.

B. On December 23, 2005, the Defendant received authorization from the head of the Gu to implement the project of this case on January 5, 2007, and the specific contents of the project implementation plan are as follows.

(1) An implementation zone: 1-67 and 92 lots of land in Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul, and 13,141.7 square meters: 2. A project implementation plan: A project implementation change plan: a site area of 8,900 square meters, multi-unit housing for main use, building area of 4,901.64 square meters, total floor area of 76,340 square meters, 5,340.40 square meters, 40 square meters, 5 stories underground, 22 stories above ground, ③ project expenses of 169,723, 343, 142, 42 won, 156 households for multi-family housing (hereinafter referred to as “multi-family housing”) and 133.

C. The plaintiffs were automatically admitted to the defendant's members under Article 19 (1) of the Do Government Act as the owner of land, etc. located within the project implementation zone of this case, and the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff 7 did not apply for the parcelling-out of the housing of this case by February 9, 2007, which is the period for the application for parcelling-out of the housing of this case, notified by the defendant. The plaintiff 7 did not apply for the parcelling-out of the housing of this case, but did not apply for the parcelling-out by withdrawing it. The defendant failed to reach a consultation on cash settlement with the plaintiffs, and applied for an adjudication on expropriation of the land, etc. owned by the plaintiffs pursuant to Article 38 of the Do Government Act, and there was each ruling on expropriation for the remaining plaintiffs except

D. Upon the completion of the period for application for parcelling-out, the Defendant established a management and disposal plan under Article 48 of the Do Administration Act (hereinafter “instant management and disposal plan”) based on the current status of the application for parcelling-out, and obtained approval from the head of the Gu on June 22, 2007 through a resolution of the members’ general meeting on February 27, 2007. There is no substantial difference between the project implementation authorization and the part concerning the housing construction plan. However, in the “fund management” item, the total project cost is KRW 184,802,430,904, and the estimated revenue amount is KRW 241,160,61,780.

E. According to Article 11 of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation, the following grounds are as follows: “When a partner transfers ownership of a building or the status of being selected as an occupant, etc.” (Article 1(1) and “when a partner fails to apply for a sale within the period for filing an application for a sale” (Article 2(2)). Meanwhile, Article 22(1) of the Articles of incorporation of the Defendant Union provides that, except as otherwise provided by this articles of incorporation, a majority of the members present

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1-1 to 15, Gap evidence 2-4, Gap evidence 6-1 to 12, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The instant management and disposition plan, compared to the time of the establishment of the association, has increased by 6.5% from 119.8 billion won to 18.4 billion won. In the event of the establishment of the association, 58 households in total, among 138 households in small size of less than 40 square meters, which can be purchased by partners. However, in the instant management and disposition plan, it is anticipated that one household of less than 40 square meters out of 156 households in the instant housing is not constructed, and that a small size of small size of less than 40 square meters can be purchased by lots and a certain liquidation amount can be paid. The Plaintiffs who agreed to establish the association were bound to waive sales due to their lack of ability to cope with the contribution for the serious square, and eventually, the management and disposition plan of this case has been modified to the effect that the agreement on the gratuitous shares of partners was not observed, and thus, the consent of the owners of more than 164 square meters in accordance with the instant management and disposition plan is unlawful, as stipulated in the articles of association.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Bain ex officio.

A person who can dispute the legitimacy of a management and disposition plan under Article 48 of the Do Government Act is a member who is affected by the rights and obligations under the management and disposition plan, and the plaintiffs, as the owners of land, etc. within the project execution zone of this case, were bound to join the defendant's members under Article 19 (1) of the Do Government Act, and the application for parcelling-out is not made within the period for parcelling-out or the application for parcelling-out is withdrawn, thereby losing the status as a member of the defendant's articles of association pursuant to Article 11 (2) of the defendant's articles of association. Further, even if the management and disposition plan of this case is revoked, if the plaintiffs cannot achieve the purpose of the lawsuit that the plaintiffs sought as the defendant

According to the above facts, at least 40 square meters of the housing unit in this case, the project cost is increased, and officetels is changed to Orals, etc., according to the matters concerning housing construction plan and the cost-bearing prescribed in the project implementation plan of this case, the defendant obtained application for parcelling-out in accordance with the project implementation plan of this case, and established the management and disposal plan of this case based on the status of the application for parcelling-out, and the defendant can expropriate the land, etc. owned by the plaintiffs based on the validity of the project implementation approval of this case. Thus, since the project implementation plan of this case in this case is legally effective because the plaintiffs did not dispute about the project implementation plan of this case itself with the approval of modification, even if the management and disposal plan of this case is revoked, the management and disposal plan of this case can be established, or the acceptance ruling of the remaining plaintiffs other than the plaintiffs 7 can be revoked as a matter of course, and therefore the above plaintiffs' rights cannot be recovered again due to the cancellation of the management and disposal plan of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiffs do not have standing to sue or have no legal interest in seeking revocation of the management and disposition plan of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is unlawful, so it is decided to dismiss it as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Justices Kim Jong-hwan (Presiding Justice)