1. On June 30, 201, among the judgment of the court of first instance, a claim against the selected A Co., Ltd., Defendant B’s Housing Redevelopment Cooperatives

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiffs filed the same claim as the stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the above claim. The first instance court dismissed the part of the transfer notification disposition among the Plaintiffs’ claims against the Defendant Union, and dismissed all the remaining claims.

The plaintiffs appealed against the whole judgment of the court of first instance, but at the date of the second pleading of the court of first instance, the plaintiffs dismissed the appeal regarding the following (i) through (iii) by making a statement of an application for change of the purport of appeal and an additional statement of the reason for appeal as of May 13, 2014.

Therefore, the following parts were excluded from the scope of the judgment of the court of first instance since the judgment was finally affirmed:

① Of the primary claim against Defendant D’s head of the Gu, the part demanding “a confirmation of invalidity of the authorization for implementation of a housing redevelopment project that was made against the Defendant Union on December 20, 2010”; ② the part demanding “a revocation of the authorization for implementation of a housing redevelopment project that was made against the Defendant Union on December 20, 2010”; ③ the part demanding “a revocation of the authorization for implementation of a housing redevelopment project that was made against the Defendant Union on December 20, 2010” among the Plaintiffs’ conjunctive claim against the Defendant Union; ③ the part demanding “a revocation of the authorization for implementation of a housing redevelopment project that was approved on December 20, 2010” among the Plaintiffs’ conjunctive claim against the Defendant Union. 2. The reasons why the court’s explanation on this case was presented by the court of first instance on December 2, 201, the head of the association “the head of the association” of 5th and 3th of 10th is added to the following part, instead of deleting “the above argument is without merit.”

Therefore, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is.

[Supplementary part] Therefore, the part of the defendants' above assertion against plaintiff Go River, A, and F is justified.