The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

The plaintiffs' total cost of litigation.

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. In order to have a benefit to confirm the legal relationship that is the subject of a suit for confirmation, there must be a danger proposal existing in the claimant's rights or legal status according to the legal relationship, and in order to remove the risk, it should be immediately finalized by the confirmation judgment covering the legal relationship, and it should be the most effective and appropriate means.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da26131 delivered on October 12, 1995, and Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1823 delivered on June 14, 2002). The status of buyers or the right to parcel out (hereinafter “right to parcel out”) concerning newly constructed houses created as a result of the implementation of the project in the housing redevelopment or reconstruction improvement project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da26131 delivered on June 14, 2002) is not naturally recognized to the owners of lands, etc. who become partners only by the application for parcelling-out, but only

Therefore, in a case where a management and disposal plan is formulated differently from the details of his/her application for parcelling-out, it is not permitted to seek confirmation of the right to parcel out as a civil lawsuit or a party lawsuit in the public law against the partnership (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Da31235, Feb. 15, 196). Under the current Administrative Litigation Act, a lawsuit seeking administrative agencies to seek confirmation of the right to parcel out (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992; 2003Du11988, May 25, 2006) is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992; 2003Du1988, May 25, 2006).