1. The plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant constitutes an organization with the aim of promoting redevelopment projects in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which was designated and publicly announced as prearranged area for urban environment rearrangement project by J-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant project area”), and obtained approval from the head of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. The Plaintiffs are land owners in the instant project area.

The agenda referred to in subparagraph 1: The agenda referred to in subparagraph 2 for the case of appointing a chairperson: the agenda referred to in subparagraph 4 for the case of changing the self-governing rules: the agenda referred to in subparagraph 5 for the case of changing the joint project implementer and delegating the conclusion of a contract: the agenda referred to in subparagraph 6 for the case of terminating the contract of the specialized project management contractor and the designer: the agenda referred to in subparagraph 7 for the case of selecting the specialized project management contractor and cancelling the contract of the designer: the case of subparagraph 8 for the case of selecting the specialized project management contractor and concluding the contract: the case of subparagraph 9 for the case of approving the execution of duties: The case of subparagraph 10 for the case of approving the budget of the committee

B. On November 19, 2015, the Defendant held a residents’ general meeting (hereinafter “instant general meeting”) on and around 19:00, and 493 of the owners of the land, etc. identified by the lot number of the land in the instant project zone (i.e., 493 persons directly present at 42 written resolution) was present and resolved with the consent of a majority of the owners of the land, etc. present at the following agenda items (hereinafter “instant resolution”).

C. Provisions related to this case, such as the defendant's autonomous rules, are as shown in the attached Table 1-related statutes, and the number of owners of land, etc. at the general meeting of the case in the Hague, and the status of resolution are as listed in

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The following procedural and content defects are significant and thus the resolution of the plaintiffs' assertion of this case is invalid.

1. The instant case is not later than October 24, 2015, due to the defect in the convening procedure.