1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the reasoning of the judgment, is as follows: “The Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”)” in Part 14 of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance as “the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”); “the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017”); “the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”

(However, the part on the co-defendant D and E in the first instance court, which became separated, is excluded). 2. Additional determination

A. Although the proportionality ratio investigated by the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office on the instant rearrangement project around September 17, 2013 is 77.07%, it is illegal to take a disposition of the management and disposal plan without undergoing the residents’ opinion inspection procedure in accordance with the legal procedure even though the Defendants’ assertion was subject to the cancellation of the rearrangement zone. Although the estimated ratio of the rearrangement project in this case has increased from 77.07% around September 17, 2013 to 10.04% at the time of the establishment of the management and disposal plan, it is unlawful to authorize the management and disposal plan without protecting the rights of the landowners, etc. by taking into account the circumstances in which the applicants renounced the application for parcelling-out based on the previous proportional ratio, and thus, the above management and disposal plan should be revoked or it is void automatically

B. In a civil suit, when a certain administrative disposition becomes a preliminary question, a judgment may be rendered on the premise that the administrative disposition is null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da90092, Apr. 8, 2010). However, there is an illegal cause that can be revoked in an administrative disposition, unless the administrative disposition cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g.

Even if the administrative disposition is fair, the administrative act is fair.