1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Details of the disposition

The court's explanation on this part is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment, except for the addition, deletion, or dismissal as follows. Thus, the court's explanation on this part is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Resolution 1 of the first instance court decision

C. (2) (3) Next, “The Defendant has received an application for parcelling-out” in paragraph (2)(3), adding “The Defendant has extended the period of application for parcelling-out to July 2, 2008, and thereafter, received an application for parcelling-out from April 6, 2010 to April 15, 2010, finally, from January 25, 201 to January 28, 201.”

At the bottom of the fourth decision of the first instance court, the "third re-building resolution" in the 7th decision shall be raised as "the second re-building resolution".

On the fourth fourth decision of the court of first instance, the Supreme Court ruled that “A decision was rendered on the termination of the lawsuit,” and the Plaintiff Intervenor F et al. appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal (2014du13782).”

The five pages of the decision of the first instance court (hereinafter referred to as "the second project implementation plan") shall be deleted, and the following shall be added thereto:

The plaintiff et al. filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the general meeting with the Seoul Eastern District Court 201Gahap8107 by asserting the defects of the public notice of sale in lots and the procedure for application for parcelling-out and the failure to meet the quorum, etc. However, on November 21, 2012, the above court dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that the status of the union member was lost due to the failure to apply for parcelling-out in the valid procedure for parcelling-out in accordance with the first project implementation plan, and dismissed the remaining plaintiff et al.'s request.

The above judgment was finalized on November 28, 2013 through the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2013Na333) and the final appeal (Supreme Court 2013Da71838).

(ii) 6 pages 5 of the first instance judgment, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor shall be the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor.