1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an association that implements an urban development project (hereinafter “instant project”) with approximately approximately KRW 691,604 square meters in business area, which shall be approximately KRW 691,604,00,000, and the Plaintiffs are members of the said association.

B. On September 8, 2016, the Defendant held a board of representatives and resolved on the preparation of a land substitution plan for the instant project, and thereafter, obtained authorization of a land substitution plan from the Yongsan Market on August 11, 2017 through the public inspection and publication procedure with respect to the resolved land substitution plan.

C. On September 7, 2017, the Defendant announced and announced the land scheduled for substitution as of September 22, 2017, setting the effective date as of September 22, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 11, 13, 20, Eul evidence No. 21, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The lawsuit of this case concerning the defendant's defense prior to the merits is a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity on the ground that the plaintiff was found to have committed an unlawful act of serious apparentity in the land substitution plan for the project in the form of a party suit

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the land substitution plan under the Urban Development Act does not in itself cause any change in its own legal effect and thus its disposal cannot be recognized, and that the plaintiffs' lawsuit disputing its illegality cannot be viewed as a subject of a party lawsuit under public law, and thus, it is unlawful.

While the rights and duties of landowners, etc. are changed directly by the designation of a land as a planned land substitution or a disposition of replotting under the Urban Development Act, the land substitution plan only serves as the ground for the aforementioned designation of a land as a planned land substitution or that of a disposition of replotting, not directly changing the legal status of the land owners, etc. or does not involve any other unique

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Nu6889 Decided August 20, 199). However, the fact that the Defendant designated and publicly announced the land scheduled for substitution as of September 22, 2017 by setting the effective date of September 7, 2017 as the date of September 22, 2017 is as seen earlier, so the aforementioned designation of land scheduled for substitution as above.