1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a housing redevelopment project partnership that obtained approval for the establishment of a housing redevelopment project from the head of Mapo-gu Office on July 12, 2010 to implement a housing redevelopment project within the F 23,405 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-dong (hereinafter “E-dong”).

B. On April 7, 2003, the plaintiff A purchased the sapap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp

On the other hand, there is no designated land substitution for the plaintiffs and the relocating owners who did not own only the building and did not own the land.

C. On September 26, 2013, the Plaintiffs asserted that they own a building in the instant rearrangement zone and filed a lawsuit to confirm the status of a partner against the Defendant, and sentenced that “the Plaintiff is a member of the Defendant” was declared (Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap39650), and the Defendant appealed, but the judgment was rendered to dismiss the Defendant’s appeal on June 20, 2014 (Seoul High Court 2013Nu28925) (Seoul High Court 2013Nu28925). The said judgment became final and conclusive on July 8, 2014.

On the other hand, the Defendant obtained authorization from the head of Mapo-gu on January 24, 2013 after the resolution of the management and disposal plan on July 21, 2012 (hereinafter “instant management and disposal plan”). The instant management and disposal plan stipulated the object of parcelling-out as “the owner of a plot of land designated within the project district as of the expiration date of the period for application for parcelling-out among the applicants for parcelling-out” (Article 8(1)), and the Plaintiffs, who did not have been designated as a reserved land, did not fall under the object of parcelling-out according to

On the other hand, the management and disposal plan of this case is stipulated as follows, and it is 59 units of 10 households.