1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs claim for payment of money, such as the statement of claim, as compensation for damages, by asserting that the plaintiff did not file an application for authorization of an implementation plan within three years from the date of designation of an urban development zone in violation of the duty of due care as a good manager of the association, even though the head, director, and auditor of the "I Urban Development Project Association" were obligated to perform the duties of an association with the duty of care as a good manager of the association, and that the designation of an urban development zone was cancelled.

However, the result of the J’s appraisal alone cannot be readily concluded that the damage was caused by the decline in the value of land owned by the Plaintiffs on the ground that the designation of an urban development zone was cancelled, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ claim in this case is without merit without any need

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.