1. All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits against the defendants are dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiffs asserted that they are the owners or de facto owners of an unauthorized building with the land size of 43 square meters located within the redevelopment project zone implemented by the defendant C&A (hereinafter "the defendant association"), but they are not the plaintiffs and the defendant D, who is not the plaintiffs, as the owners of the above unauthorized building and recognized the right to sell the land to the members of the defendant association. Thus, they seek confirmation as to the fact that the defendant association and the management and disposal plan for the defendant association are in possession of the association members and the right to sell the land to the defendant D, and seek a disposition to refuse the sale of the land to the defendant D.

2. Where there is a dispute over the contents of the management and disposal plan determined after the application for parcelling-out is lawful, the management and disposal plan can be claimed for revocation of the management and disposal plan or the rejection of parcelling-out, which is the contents thereof, in accordance with the appeal litigation, since the owner of the land, etc., who wishes to acquire the ownership of the land or constructed facilities, is not the object of parcelling-out, even if the qualification of the association is recognized, if the association does not make an application for parcelling-out or does not want to parcel out, it shall be liquidated in cash. Thus, it shall not be deemed that the specific ownership of the land, etc., which the owner of the land, etc., wants to be excluded from the application for parcelling-out or to be the object of parcelling-out under the management and disposal plan is not the object of parcelling-out. Thus, it shall not

Supreme Court Decision 94Da31235 delivered on February 15, 1996