1. We dismiss the plaintiffs' claim to nullify the invalidity of the project action plan among the plaintiffs' lawsuits.

2. The Defendant’s August 17, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 28, 2008, the Defendant is a housing redevelopment project association which has obtained authorization from the head of Seo-gu Office to implement a housing redevelopment project with the area of 21,536 square meters of the Seo-gu AE (area 21,536 square meters) as the project implementation district, and the Plaintiffs are the owners of land in the project implementation district.

B. The process of authorization, etc. of a project implementation plan for the above project is as follows:

Approval of the project implementation plan in this case of AF published by Busan Metropolitan City on January 9, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “public notice of designation of the rearrangement zone”): June 2012 (Public notice of Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City on June 20, 2012): Approval of the project implementation plan in this case of this case: August 17, 2015 (Public notice of Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City on August 26, 2015) (Public notice of Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City on August 26, 2015).

C. On September 14, 2015, the Defendant announced and notified the application period for parcelling-out to its members, including the Plaintiffs, during the period from September 16, 2015 to October 20, 2015, and the Plaintiffs did not apply for parcelling-out.

On January 22, 2016, the defendant excluded the owners of land, etc. who did not apply for parcelling-out including the plaintiffs from the association members, held a general meeting of 119 members who applied for parcelling-out with the consent of 111 members, and decided on a management and disposition plan with the consent of 111 members. The head of the Seo-gu Office approved the management and disposition plan of the defendant on March 2, 2016 and announced it on March 9, 2016 (the Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 18, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

A. 1) In the case of the plaintiffs asserted by the defendant, since the plaintiffs are eligible for cash settlement that has lost their membership because they failed to apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out, the plaintiffs' lawsuit should be dismissed unfairly. 2) In the case of accepting the claim for change of the project implementation plan of this case, the partnership shall accept