1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Association established to implement the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project by setting the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H Group as the business zone, and the plaintiffs are the owners of lands, etc. in the above business zone.

B. After the process of the project, the Defendant received the authorization from the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on September 18, 2008 to establish an association, the authorization to implement the project on September 5, 2013, and the authorization to implement the project on November 13, 2014, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defense and judgment of this case

A. Although the plaintiffs sought revocation of the entire management and disposal plan authorized on the ground that their contributions are likely to increase, the plaintiffs are deemed to have no direct and specific interests to dispute about the part exceeding their contributions.

In addition, the Plaintiffs seek revocation of the instant management and disposition plan without any specific assertion or ground, and thus constitutes abuse of the right of lawsuit.

B. The Urban Redevelopment Act redevelopment association under the Urban Redevelopment Act is a special administrative agent with at least special purpose in legal relations with its members, and is in a relationship with the rights and obligations under public law to the extent that it can be seen as engaging in specific public affairs which are its existence under the supervision of the State. Thus, in a case where there is a dispute as to the contents of the management and disposal plan determined after the application for parcelling-out, the management and disposal plan constitutes a disposition by an association that has specific and conclusive influence on

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Du6333 Decided December 10, 2002). In light of the above legal principles, inasmuch as the Plaintiffs asserted the illegality of a management and disposal plan, the Plaintiffs are concerned.