1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The court's explanation about this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the allegations emphasized by the plaintiffs in the trial of the first instance under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 42

(The plaintiffs are basically repeating the same argument in the first instance court. The first instance court's rejection of the plaintiffs' assertion even if the plaintiffs' arguments and reasons are considered to have been partly supplemented in the trial. The defendant claiming additional plaintiffs received the application for parcelling-out without notifying the members of the previous evaluation amount in the process of guiding the application for parcelling-out, which violates the duty to provide the information known to the members of the association for parcelling-out so that the members can make a substantial decision on the application for parcelling-out.

Therefore, the management and disposal plan of this case, which was established based on illegal application for parcelling-out, is illegal.

Judgment

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiffs of the previous evaluation amount in the process of guiding the application for parcelling-out, only on the written evidence Nos. 2 (a management and disposal plan proposal prepared by the Defendant around June 21, 2014). There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 21-1 and 2-2, the defendant requested the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to select an appraisal company on August 5, 2013, and two appraisal corporations selected with the recommendation of the head of Dongdaemun-gu and submitted an appraisal report on the previous and follow-up assets to the defendant on May 2, 2014. Thus, the defendant is in the previous assets around October 2013, the time when he/she instructs the members, including the plaintiffs, to apply for parcelling-out.