1. The judgment of the first instance, including the plaintiffs' claims added or expanded in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

1. The reason why this Court shall explain this part of the underlying facts was “third-party 3.”

“B” and received authorization to implement the reconstruction project of this case on December 31, 2004 in accordance with the Urban Improvement Act.

"At the same time, the part corresponding to the judgment of the court of first instance (from 11 to 10 pages 2 to 3) other than the original written application is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Judgment on a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of membership

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this part of the defense prior to the merits is as follows: (a) it is identical to that of the third to fourth to fourth to nine of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) it is citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

B. (1) The parties' assertion and the key plaintiffs asserted that the rebuilding resolution of this case were not consented or invalid, and the defendant asserted that the plaintiffs agreed to the rebuilding resolution of this case and did not file an application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out.

Therefore, I first examine whether the plaintiffs consented to the rebuilding resolution of this case and whether the plaintiffs lose their status as the defendant's union members by failing to apply for parcelling-out within the application period.

(2) The Defendants’ consent to rebuilding resolution pursuant to the former Housing Construction Promotion Act and the validity thereof are determined (a) unless otherwise stipulated in the association bylaws or the articles of incorporation, the expression of consent is not necessarily required to be limited to a certain procedure and method, and it is sufficient that there is an act or appearance to clarify the intent of consent.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da52328 Decided February 11, 2010, and Supreme Court Decision 2002Da12 Decided March 11, 2002). In addition, civil trials are not bound by the facts recognized in the judgment of other civil cases, etc.