1. Each land scheduled for substitution listed in the attached Tables 1 and 2, which the Defendant stated against the Plaintiffs on January 11, 2016, shall be as follows.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant obtained authorization to establish an urban development project with respect to the size of 475,948 square meters per day from Pyeongtaek-si D (hereinafter “instant project”) as the implementer, and on January 31, 2011.

Plaintiff

A is the owner of each land listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and Plaintiff B is the owner of each land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case” in total, and where individual land is named, it shall be indicated only with the lot number) and is the Defendant’s member.

B. On February 11, 2010 with respect to the instant project, the Gyeonggi-do Governor publicly notified the designation of an urban development zone and the establishment of a development plan for the instant project, and publicly notified the Gyeonggi-do public notification of the implementation plan on July 14, 201.

Since then on July 15, 2015, October 13, 2015, and January 22, 2016, the head of Pyeongtaek-si announced the revision of the implementation plan to G, H, and I.

C. The Defendant formulated a replotting plan to implement the entire urban development zone by replotting method (hereinafter “instant replotting plan”) and obtained authorization for a replotting plan from the head of Pyeongtaek-si on December 17, 2015.

On January 11, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to designate land as a planned land substitution (hereinafter “instant disposition”) regarding each of the instant land, etc. in the instant project district.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 4 or video (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) The defendant's decision of the council of representatives dated January 7, 2016 by the 10th executive officer of the Urban Development Act did not reach the number of representatives prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act and the articles of incorporation, or did not fill the number of representatives without qualification as representatives by J, K, L, and M who lost their membership.

Therefore, the instant disposition is made by the resolution of the general meeting required by the Urban Development Act.