1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 18, 2007, the Defendant was established for the purpose of housing redevelopment improvement project for the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 60,982 square meters, and obtained authorization for implementation of the project on October 1, 2009, and authorization for implementation of the project on October 10, 2014, respectively from the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

The proportional ratio (1) for the calculation of a rough charge = The total estimated amount of the sites and buildings and facilities after the completion of the project in the zone x the total project cost x the ratio of 100.13% = 437,887,832,250 (presumed amount) - 291,700,000 (presumed amount) x 146,000,000 (presumed amount) x 146,000,000 (presumed amount) for the calculation of a rough charge.

B. On October 22, 2014, the Defendant publicly announced the details of the site or structure subject to parcelling-out, the period and place of the application for parcelling-out, the qualification for the application for parcelling-out, the method of application for parcelling-out, etc. (hereinafter “instant public announcement”), and distributed to its members a written guidance for application for parcelling-out (hereinafter “instant public announcement”) including the following matters:

C. On September 17, 2015, the Defendant obtained authorization of the management and disposition plan from the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant management and disposition plan”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. To make entries in the attached statutes concerned;

3. The defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff A's lawsuit is legitimate, since the plaintiff A is in a position of cash clearinger and applied for an expropriation ruling by failing to file an application for parcelling-out, there is no benefit to dispute the validity of the management and disposition plan of this case

Since there is a defect in the notification of the outlined charges for application for parcelling-out in the management and disposal plan of this case, the plaintiff cannot be liable for failing to apply for parcelling-out to the plaintiff, and if there is a judgment to nullify the management and disposal plan of this case on the ground of the above defect, the defendant is not defective.