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.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the parts to be filled or added below, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 6th day below the 4th day of the first instance judgment "Evidences. 3, 10, 2 through 7 of the A, and 6th day below shall be "Evidences 3, 9, 10, 11 of the A, 2 through 8, and 10 of the A."

The following shall be added to 5 pages 3 of the judgment of the first instance.

On August 2015, the Ansan Mayor sent a reply to the purport that the civil petition filed by some members of the defendant to the effect that "a written resolution submitted at the above general meeting is necessary to make a judicial judgment."

The following shall be added to the 5th written judgment of the first instance.

The above application for parcelling-out is subject to the defendant's members (owner of land, etc.), and the "person who fails to apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out shall be subject to cash settlement."

The following shall be added to the 6th five pages of the judgment of the first instance.

The defendant's notice of the application for parcelling-out is that where a partner who applied for parcelling-out according to the previous project implementation plan intends to substitute an existing application for parcelling-out as a new application for parcelling-out without applying for alteration, a confirmation of application for parcelling-out shall be submitted, and where there is no submission of a new application for parcelling-out or a confirmation of

The 6th to 11th of the first instance judgment shall be followed by the following:

3. In other words, some of the defendant's union members constantly raise an objection to the quorum and the validity of the resolution of the ordinary general meeting on April 11, 2015.