1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff AM's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs except the plaintiffs AM.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment by the court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. We examine whether the lawsuit by Plaintiff AM is lawful ex officio.

A lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidation, etc. may be brought by a person having legal interest in seeking confirmation of validity or existence of a disposition, etc.

(Article 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act). Article 19 of the former Act provides that a partner of an improvement project shall be “owner of land, etc.” (paragraph (1) and Article 2 Subparag. 9(a) of the same Act provides that the owner of land or building located in a rearrangement zone shall be “owner of land, etc.” (Article 35).

In full view of the above provisions, if an owner of land or a building in a rearrangement zone who acquires the status of a partner of the rearrangement project loses the ownership of the land or building in the rearrangement zone, the status of a partner will also be lost, and if the status of a partner is lost, there is no possibility to affect the legal relationship of the project implementation plan, and there is no legal interest to seek confirmation of nullity of the

According to the health stand and evidence No. 3 of this case, the defendant's articles of association can be acknowledged that "if a member transfers the ownership of a building or the status of being selected as an occupant, etc., he/she shall immediately lose his/her membership" under Article 11 (1) of the articles of association of the defendant, and the plaintiff AM sells to CI and CJ each one-half shares of "Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan CK CK DK Drierbrobro 12 apartments in the project area of this case" and the fact that he/she completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 28, 2019 is no dispute between the parties.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff.