1. The plaintiffs' primary claims and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant: (a) obtained authorization to establish an association from the head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “head of Dongjak-gu”) on November 25, 2013 for the purpose of implementing a housing reconstruction project in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D D (hereinafter referred to as “instant rearrangement zone”); (b) obtained authorization to alter each association on July 14, 2014; (c) September 15, 2014; (d) February 24, 2015; and (e) obtained authorization to implement each project on August 10, 2015; and (e) obtained authorization to implement each project on March 3, 2015; and (e) the Plaintiffs are the Defendant’s members as owners of land, etc. in the instant rearrangement zone.

B. On July 16, 2016, the Defendant holds a general meeting of shareholders to decide on a management and disposition plan, and obtained authorization therefor from the head of Dongjak-gu, October 27, 2016 from the head of the Gu.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant management and disposition plan”). . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1-5, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 28, Eul evidence 29, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The alleged plaintiffs asserts that since the instant disposition to establish the association is invalid due to procedural defects, the instant management and disposal plan formulated by the defendant established under the disposition to establish the association of this case should be revoked as it is invalid or unlawful. The plaintiffs shall seek confirmation or revocation of the disposition to establish the association of this case against the head of Dongjak-gu, and seek confirmation or revocation of the instant management and disposal plan against the defendant is unlawful.

B. In a civil suit, when a certain administrative disposition becomes a preliminary question, the judgment can be made on the premise that the administrative disposition is null and void, and it is not necessarily subject to the revocation or confirmation of invalidation by the administrative litigation procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da90092, Apr. 8, 2010). This is whether an administrative disposition is null and void in an administrative litigation.