1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a cooperative that implements a housing reconstruction project in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government 176,590 square meters (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”). The Plaintiffs are owners of each relevant real estate listed in the list of the instant rearrangement zone (attached Form 1) (hereinafter “each real estate”).

B. 1) On September 2, 2010, the head of Seocho-gu publicly announced on September 2, 2010, the head of Seocho-gu publicly announced the Seoul Metropolitan Government for the designation of the rearrangement zone and the formulation of the maintenance plan regarding the rearrangement zone in this case. The Defendant was established pursuant to Article 16(2) and (3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11580, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “former Act”), and was authorized by the head of Seocho-gu as a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project partnership on May 10, 2012, and completed the establishment registration on May 14, 2012. 2) The Plaintiffs did not express their consent to the establishment of the partnership at the time the Defendant was incorporated.

3) The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs and exercised the right to demand sale under Article 39 of the former Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and Article 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Aggregate Buildings Act”) (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gahap92826). The Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na2072055 decided January 13, 2017 (hereinafter “the appellate court judgment of this case”) (hereinafter “the appellate court of this case”), which was the appellate court of the above case, paid the Plaintiffs money corresponding to the “sale price” indicated in the detailed statement “Attachment 2” to the Defendant, and at the same time, decided that the transfer registration procedure for each of the above real estate was implemented on the date corresponding to the “sale date” indicated in the same Table as the “sale date. The Plaintiffs appealed against the above appellate court judgment, but the appellate court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ appeal on August 23, 2017 [the above appellate court’s judgment].