1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiffs' primary claims and the conjunctive claims added at the trial.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant obtained authorization to establish an urban development project with respect to the size of 475,948 square meters per day from Pyeongtaek-si D (hereinafter “instant project”) on January 31, 201.

Plaintiff

A is the owner of each land listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and Plaintiff B is the owner of each land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case” in total, and where individual land is named, it shall be indicated only with the lot number) and is the Defendant’s member.

B. On February 11, 2010 with respect to the instant project, the Gyeonggi-do Governor publicly notified the designation of an urban development zone and the establishment of a development plan for the instant project, and publicly notified the Gyeonggi-do public notification of the implementation plan on July 1, 201.

Since then on July 15, 2015, October 13, 2015, and January 22, 2016, the head of Pyeongtaek-si announced the revision of the implementation plan to G, H, and I.

C. On December 17, 2015, the Defendant established a replotting plan to implement the entire urban development zone by replotting method, and obtained authorization for a replotting plan from the head of Pyeongtaek-si.

On January 11, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to designate the instant land as a planned land substitution (hereinafter “instant disposition”) with respect to each of the instant land in the instant project district.

E. On April 7, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant previous disposition, on the grounds that the instant disposition was conducted without a resolution of the general meeting or a resolution of the board of representatives required by the Urban Development Act, and on the grounds that it was unlawful. On December 1, 2016, the court of first instance rendered a judgment revoking the instant previous disposition on the grounds that the resolution of the board of representatives on the agenda for the designation of land substitution did not meet the quorum for intention.

F. On December 15, 2016, after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, the Defendant held an extraordinary general meeting of its members (hereinafter “instant extraordinary general meeting”), and the instant extraordinary meeting approved the public announcement of the land scheduled for replotting at the said extraordinary general meeting.

The defendant is on the same day.