1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and the defendant B Housing Redevelopment Project Association added by this court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following additional matters and the allegations made by the plaintiffs in this court as to this case, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

The following matters (Article 10(2) and (3) of the instant service contract) shall be added to 22 pages of the judgment of the first instance.

“2. The construction cost of the construction project under the above paragraph (1) includes the cost of construction, removal and operation of M/H. 3. The selection of a business entity following the procedures for the progress of the project except the above paragraph (1) shall be recommended by the Plaintiff so that the Defendant Union can select an enterprise with excellent business after objectively examining the business ability of the Plaintiff, and shall cooperate with the Plaintiff so that the Plaintiff may obtain a resolution at the general meeting if necessary

2. Additional determination

A. As to the assertion that the resolution of the general meeting of the Defendant association is unnecessary under the instant service contract, Article 10(4) of the instant service contract merely means that the resolution shall take effect at the general meeting of the Defendant association in the case of various service contracts to be concluded by the Defendant association pursuant to Article 10(1) through (3) of the instant service contract, and it does not mean that the instant service contract ought to be resolved at the general meeting of the Defendant association. The instant service contract does not mean that it ought to be resolved at the

(2) Article 10(4) of the instant service contract does not require a resolution of the general meeting pursuant to each subparagraph of Article 24(3). Therefore, even if the ratification of the instant service contract was rejected at the general meeting of the Defendant Union held on February 14, 2015, the instant service contract becomes effective in a final and conclusive manner from May 28, 2014 for which the instant contract was concluded. (2) As seen earlier, prior to the determination of the facts, Article 10(4) of the instant service contract is governed by the Urban Improvement Act.