1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiffs' assertion is the housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association whose project implementation district covers 65,148 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and the plaintiffs own the real estate indicated in the separate sheet located within the above zone (hereinafter "the real estate of this case").

On December 21, 2012, the Defendant exercised the right to demand sale of the instant real estate pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), and this was not only nine years or more from the date of the first association establishment registration, but also nine years or more from the date of the first association establishment registration, and it is invalid as it does not meet any requirement for exercising the right to demand sale, such as written consent to reconstruction, resolution for reconstruction, peremptory notice without delay in writing, and claim for sale at the market price.

2. The res judicata effect does not allow a subsequent suit which is identical to the subject matter of a prior suit in which the judgment in the previous suit has res judicata effect, and at the same time, even if the subject matter of a prior suit is not the same as the subject matter of a prior suit in the previous suit, if the judgment in the previous suit is a prior question or contradictory one in the previous suit, the subsequent suit does not allow a claim different from the judgment in the previous suit

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da47361, Dec. 27, 2002). Moreover, res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment extends to all the means of attack and defense in a lawsuit between the same parties, in which the parties have asserted or could have claimed, or could be claimed, before the closing of argument. However, res judicata is interrupted only when a new ground arises after the closing of argument.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da24847, 24854, Oct. 27, 1992). However, according to the fact-finding and each statement of Nos. 7 and 8 (including a serial number) in this court, the Defendant respectively filed a claim for sale against the Plaintiffs on the basis of the instant claim for sale.