1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant project”) whose business area covers the F of Mapo-gu Seoul and 435 square meters outside 51,476 square meters, and the Defendants are the owners of the land, etc. located within the instant project area.

B. After receiving project implementation authorization from the head of Mapo-gu on November 25, 2009, the Plaintiff received the authorization on May 22, 2013, and the said authorization on the management and disposal plan was publicly notified as G publicly notified on May 30, 2013.

C. On January 22, 2010, after obtaining the said project implementation authorization, the Plaintiff provided guidance for the application for parcelling-out to the members for parcelling-out for 60 days from January 25, 2010 to March 25, 2010, and the Defendants applied for parcelling-out within the said period.

After obtaining the project implementation authorization, the Plaintiff obtained the project implementation authorization from the head of Mapo-gu and finally obtained the project implementation authorization on September 25, 2014.

E. On the other hand, on November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff announced the re-sale application to the owners of the land, etc. in the instant project zone on September 25, 2014 following the project implementation change authorization, and the Defendants did not file an application for re-sale application in accordance with the said re-sale application announcement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap's 1 to 3, and 5 to 8 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Defendants asserted the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion as the members of the application for parcelling-out shall not use or benefit from the land or buildings owned within the pertinent project zone after May 30, 2013, in accordance with Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), but did not perform their obligations by refusing to use or benefit from each of the land and buildings owned by them.