1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall include the part resulting from the participation in the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception of dismissal or addition of some contents, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

"No. B No. 1, 2, and 10" in paragraph 11 of the 3th judgment of the court of first instance shall be raised with "No. 1, 2, and 12".

The following shall be added to the 9th sentence following the judgment of the first instance.

【Inasmuch as the consent of the owners, such as the land, etc. for the establishment of a housing reconstruction and improvement project association is made based on the standard written consent under Article 16(2) and (5) of the Urban Improvement Act, Article 26(1), Article 26(2)2 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and attached Form 4-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Improvement Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 296, Mar. 4, 2016), it shall not be deemed unlawful on the ground that the said standard written consent does not specifically stipulate the criteria for allocation of project expenses to be borne by the association members or matters concerning the ownership after completion of the project (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da1081, Apr. 8, 2010).]

Then, “The above amended provisions do not impose an obligation to provide prior information on the land owners against the disposition authority that authorized the establishment of an association, but do not impose an obligation above at the time of signing a written consent to the association establishment promotion committee at the time of signing a written consent,” in addition to “the above amended provisions do not impose an obligation on the disposition authority that authorized the establishment of an association.”

After the judgment of the court of first instance No. 14, the "no." does not strictly limit the provision of information on the presumption of contributions, etc., as alleged by the plaintiffs, and the owners of lands, etc. are special owners of lands, etc. under social norms.