1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: ① the 2nd sentence below the 5th sentence of the first instance court: (a) the 2nd sentence “AM large 30,354 square meters” was applied to “AM large 30,354 square meters”; and (b) the 6th sentence “Plaintiff A” through “the 3th sentence of the 7th sentence” was also applied to “AM and others”; and (c) the 1. to 15th sentence and the 24 joint plaintiffs of the first instance court filed a lawsuit.

The plaintiffs of the previous lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs of the previous lawsuit") shall be dismissed as "the plaintiffs of the 14th letter "Fe. 12, 201", "Fe. 11, 201", "F. 11, 201" and "F. 6-28" of the 19th letter box "F. 2," "8-9" shall be dismissed as "exclusive area", "8-52, and "8-52," and "9," shall be added as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance," "I. 12" of the 17th letter "F. 11. 25, 201", "B. 6-28" of the 19th 19th 19th 19th 19th 2, as "B. 6-48", and the plaintiffs' second 19th 2nd 19th 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3.

Therefore, based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is quoted.

2. The further determination of this Court

A. First of all, the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking confirmation of invalidity of the 2011 modified project implementation plan is the benefit of lawsuit.

In addition, the revised project implementation plan in 201, like the first project implementation plan, was omitted in most of the matters stipulated in Article 30 of the Urban Improvement Act applied in 201 and Article 41 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act, which were proposed at the time of the general meeting on July 12, 2011, with the exception of the construction outline and arrangement, and there was no resolution of the general meeting on the plan, and there was no change in the number of households exceeding 85 square meters and exceeding 108 square meters in comparison with the first project implementation plan, and there was no proper explanation of the above change to the union members. Thus, there was no significant defect that is invalid.

(b)a recognition;