1.(a)

Plaintiff

B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, M, N, P, Q, Q, R, Q, S, T, V, W, X, Y, Z, AAA, AC, AC, AD, AE, AE, AF, AG, and AG.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 11, 2006, the head of Busan Metropolitan City publicly announced AP of Busan Metropolitan City, which designated and publicly announced the Busan East-gu AP Day as an improvement zone for housing redevelopment of the zone A, and the scheduled timing for implementing the improvement project was determined as “within four years from the date of designation and public announcement of the improvement zone”.

B. On April 28, 2006, the head of the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City approved the establishment of the defendant who is a housing redevelopment project cooperative under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

C. The Defendant obtained the approval of the project implementation plan from the head of the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City on May 12, 2010 and obtained the approval of the change of the project implementation plan on July 19, 2013.

(The revised project implementation plan shall be referred to as "the first project implementation plan").

On February 7, 2014, the Defendant decided to revise the project implementation plan with the consent of 1,061 from 1,081 members of the 1,531 members of the 1,081 members of the 1,081 members of the 20th general meeting (34 members of the 334 members of the 747 members of the written resolution) (hereinafter referred to as "the changed project implementation plan") and obtained approval from the head of the Dong-dong Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as "the changed project implementation plan") on August 29, 2014, and established a management and disposal plan (hereinafter referred to as "the management and disposal plan in this case") and obtained

E. Plaintiff B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, K, M, M, P, Q, Q, T, U, V,W, X, Y, Z, AB T, AC, AD, AE, AE, AF, AF, AH, AH, AI, AJ, AJ, Amm, AM, and AO (hereinafter “Plaintiff B, etc.”) were owners of land, etc. in the above improvement zone, and the ownership was transferred to the Defendant due to the acquisition of the public site by consultation. The Plaintiff R is not the owner of land, etc., and the rest of the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “Plaintiff AR, etc.”) are owners of land, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3-5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1-7, 20, 42, and 43 (including one number without separate indication; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. As to the plaintiff Eul et al.'s lawsuit, the plaintiff Eul et al. of this case.