1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the newly asserted matters in the court of first instance by the plaintiffs in Paragraph 2 below, and therefore, the reasoning of the court of first instance is as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The resolution of the general assembly of this case asserted by the plaintiffs is null and void due to significant and obvious defects as set forth below, and even if the defects are not clear, the management and disposal plan of this case shall also be null and void or revoked.

1) Since the Defendant’s initial project implementation plan invalidation of the management and disposition plan of this case, the total floor space, maintenance project cost, etc. on the original project implementation plan of this case was substantially modified to the extent that it has a significant impact on the interests of partners compared with the time of the initial establishment of the association, in order to resolve the initial project implementation plan, the provisions of Article 20(3) and (1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents should apply mutatis mutandis and obtain the consent of more than 2/3 of the members of the association. However, in fact, the consent of a majority of all the members was only obtained, and such defect is serious and obvious, so the resolution of the initial project implementation plan is null and void. Therefore, the illegality of the Defendant’s decision on the management and disposition plan of this case,

(A) As a result of the initial application for parcelling-out, the Defendant denied the status of the Plaintiff A’s member, even though it did not express intent to withdraw the application for parcelling-out on the sole ground that the Plaintiff recognized the Plaintiff as a member of the Plaintiff as a result of the initial application for parcelling-out.