1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange from the trial to the defendants is all dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff was authorized to establish a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project in a zone A (hereinafter referred to as “instant rearrangement project”) with Seongbuk-gu Seoul AY Japan as a rearrangement zone (hereinafter referred to as “instant rearrangement zone”), and was authorized to establish an association on July 30, 2008 by the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “head of Seongbuk-gu”).

On July 21, 2009, the Plaintiff received project implementation authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Office on December 26, 2013, and obtained authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu on the change of project implementation (the content is to increase the total floor area from 123,250.20 square meters to 133,964.24 square meters in comparison with the project implementation authorization above; the floor area ratio is from 230.90% to 259.52% in each; the building is to add two buildings; the total number of small-sized households is to increase the total number of households from 733 households to 939 households; and the total number of construction households is to increase from 733 households to 939 households in February 26, 2015.

The defendants are owners of land, etc. located within the rearrangement zone of this case, who were the plaintiff's members, and the land, etc. owned by the defendants are as indicated in the annexed Table 1 "number" column.

(The above land, etc. is located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government). The Plaintiff shall publicly announce the application for parcelling-out as the period for applying for parcelling-out by setting the first-lane “from November 12, 2012 to January 30, 2013” and received the application for parcelling-out from the association members. The Plaintiff again received the application for parcelling-out as the period for applying for parcelling-out from January 10, 2014 to February 12, 2014 after obtaining an approval for the implementation of the project as above, and again received the application for parcelling-out by extending it to February 24, 2014.

Defendant 36 AK and Defendant 40 AO filed an application for parcelling-out within the first application period for parcelling-out, but did not file an application for parcelling-out during the second application period after the above modification approval, and the remaining Defendants did not file an application for parcelling-out within the first application period for parcelling-out.

On the other hand, the defendants apply for each acceptance ruling against the plaintiff as follows.