1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. The reasons alleged by the Plaintiffs in the trial of the first instance are not different from the contents alleged by the Plaintiffs in the trial of the first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the first instance and the trial of the first instance are re-examineed along with the allegations by the Plaintiffs, the judgment of the first instance court which dismissed all the instant lawsuits by the Plaintiffs

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court regarding this case is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this Court cites it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Supplementary or Additional Parts】

(a) In the second page of the judgment of the first instance court, the second instance “holding of the Plaintiff’s inaugural general meeting”, the fifth instance “holding of the Plaintiff’s general meeting”, and the first instance “holding of the Plaintiff’s general meeting” shall be deemed to read as the “holding of the inaugural general meeting of the Intervenor to the Intervenor” and “holding of the annual meeting of the Intervenor to the Intervenor

Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court, "Seoul High Court 2016Na27051 (main office)" is "Seoul High Court 2016Na2705 (main office)".

On the 7th judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's intervenor's defendant

No. 10 of the first instance court's decision No. 6, No. 10 of the first instance court's "No. 6, No. 10 of the first instance court's decision" shall be "No. 9".

(b)in addition, paragraph 9 of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added to the nineth instance judgment:

The plaintiffs are different from the contents of the reconstruction project under the above rebuilding agreement submitted by the plaintiff A and the contents of the first rebuilding resolution adopted at the inaugural general meeting of May 24, 2003. Thus, even if the plaintiff A submitted the above rebuilding agreement, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff A consented to the first rebuilding resolution. Accordingly, the first rebuilding resolution did not meet the statutory quorum prescribed by the relevant laws and regulations. Accordingly, the approval disposition for establishment of the association made on June 12, 2003 is null and void, and thereafter the defendant's intervenor is legitimate.