1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 21, 2012, in order to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project (C Housing Redevelopment Project; hereinafter “instant project”) with land of 116,66.10 square meters in Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant project zone”) as a project implementation district during Ansan-si, the Defendant is a housing redevelopment improvement project partnership which has obtained an authorization for establishment from the Ansan-si mayor on February 21, 2012, and the Plaintiffs owned 1/2 shares of 406 shares in E apartment and e-Gu mobile 406 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On September 14, 2015, the Defendant issued a public announcement for application for parcelling-out to land owners, including the Plaintiffs, by registered mail, the guidance for application for parcelling-out from September 15, 2015 to November 7, 2015, upon obtaining authorization for the implementation of the instant project from the Ansan market around July 2015.

C. On January 15, 2016, the Defendant issued a modified approval of the project implementation plan on January 15, 2016 in accordance with the amendment of the maintenance plan of the Ansan-si market on July 31, 2015, and issued an application for parcelling-out again on January 19, 2016 to the land owners, including the Plaintiffs, etc., with an instruction to newly apply for parcelling-out from January 20, 2016 to February 19, 2016, and sent the guidance to apply for parcelling-out by registered mail.

After that, the defendant established a management and disposition plan to classify the plaintiffs as persons subject to cash settlement (hereinafter "the management and disposition plan of this case") on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not file an application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out, and obtained approval from the Ansan market on February 27, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's judgment on the defendant's main defense is classified as a cash clearing in the management and disposal plan of this case by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs' status as a partner in the party litigation.