1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' preliminary claims added at the trial.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as follows: “The amount of cash liquidation that is excluded from the comparison of the rearrangement project cost pursuant to Article 47 of the former Act shall be KRW 47,128,494,000,” following the third sentence of the first instance judgment (Article 47 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Areas shall be KRW 195,917,010,000, the amount of the rearrangement project cost, which is the subject of comparison, shall be KRW 195,917,010,000), and the second sentence of the fourth sentence shall be as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except that the “Defendant Union” shall be deemed as “Plaintiff A and three others,” and this shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant union

A. The court's explanation on this part of the judgment on the primary claim is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the 7th to 9th to 20th of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 7, Parts 9 and 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: Provided, That in order for a defective administrative disposition to be deemed null and void as a matter of course, it is insufficient to say that there is an illegality in the disposition. The defect is a serious violation of laws and regulations, and it should be objectively obvious. In administrative litigation seeking confirmation of invalidation of an administrative disposition by asserting that it is void as a matter of course, the plaintiffs are liable to assert and prove the reason why the administrative disposition is null and void.

In addition, when an administrative agency takes an administrative disposition by applying a certain legal provision to a certain legal relationship or fact, the defect is significant when the administrative agency takes the administrative disposition by applying the above provision, even though there is no room for dispute over interpretation because the legal principle clearly stating that the said provision is not applicable to the legal relationship or fact.