1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project partnership that obtained authorization for establishment to implement the “D Housing Redevelopment and Rearrangement Project” (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) under the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”) as a rearrangement zone.

B. On January 26, 2017, the Defendant obtained authorization from the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “head of Eunpyeong-gu”) for the project implementation plan for the instant improvement project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project implementation plan”), and the head of Eunpyeong-gu publicly announced the project implementation plan to the public noticeF of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on

C. The Defendant, including the Plaintiffs, notified the Defendant’s members of the application period for parcelling-out to the period from January 30, 2018 to March 30, 2018, and the Plaintiffs did not apply for parcelling-out within the said period.

Under the premise that the plaintiffs are excluded from the defendant's association members, the defendant established a management and disposal plan for the rearrangement project in this case (hereinafter referred to as "management and disposal plan in this case") and obtained authorization from the head of Eunpyeong-gu on May 23, 2019, and the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced it as G publicly announced on the same day.

E. On September 25, 2019, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal decided to expropriate the real estate in the instant improvement zone owned by the Plaintiffs as of November 15, 2019. On November 5, 2019, the Defendant deposited the Plaintiffs with compensation for losses due to the said adjudication.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 3, 5, 7, 8, Eul's evidence, Eul's 2 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs asserted that the management and disposal plan of this case should be revoked in an unlawful manner on the following grounds.

The size of each parcel number entered in the land record attached at the time of designation of the improvement zone in this case is defective.