1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment under Paragraph 2 as to the matters alleged by the Defendants in the trial of the first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning as to the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance. Accordingly, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The main point of the argument of Defendant B, C, D, E, H, I, L1 is that the project implementation plan of this case, which was resolved by the general meeting of December 21, 2010, is null and void by omitting statutory matters, such as the fund plan under Article 30 of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Article 41(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and was changed to another project implementation plan and its validity became null and void after the general meeting of October 9, 2012 was resolved. However, the head of Seongbuk-gu authorized the project implementation plan as of December 10, 201, which was invalid as above, as the project implementation plan of this case was approved on January 10, 201, the approval of the project implementation plan of this case is null and void. Accordingly, since the management implementation plan of this case and the adjudication of acceptance based on the validity of the approval of the project implementation plan of this case are also null and void, the Plaintiff did not have a title to seek real estate transfer to the above Defendants.

In addition, the plaintiff's request for delivery is based on the public announcement of the approval of the management and disposal plan pursuant to Article 49 (3) and (6) of the Urban Improvement Act, and the fact that the plaintiff's project execution plan changes and the approval of the change of the head of Seongbuk-gu Office on November 26, 2015 is recognized as above, and the management and disposal plan premised on the approval of the change should be deemed as having no direct relation with the validity of the project execution plan of this case

Therefore, the above defendants' above assertion is without merit.

B. Defendant K1.