1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant C Housing Redevelopment and Rearrangement Project Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Association”) is a partnership established to carry out a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project by using the size of 12,607.5 square meters of the Fildong-gu, Busan as the rearrangement zone, and Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant E”) is the executor of the said rearrangement project.

B. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Plaintiff is a de facto owner of an unauthorized building located in the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City G located in the said improvement zone (hereinafter “instant building”). The Plaintiffs asserted that the Plaintiff is a de facto owner of an unauthorized building located in the said improvement zone (38 square meters in the first-story housing, 27.2 square meters in the second-story housing, 1.6 square meters in the third-story housing, 1.6 square meters in the first-story toilet, 00 square meters in the first floor toilet, 0.8 square meters in the first floor boiler, 0.8 square meters in the

C. On September 29, 2016, the Defendant Union rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion and recognized Defendant D as the owner of the instant building, and formulated a management and disposal plan with which it is subject to sale, and received a management and disposal plan from the head of the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the head of the Defendant Dong-dong”) on September 29, 2016, and the head of the Defendant Dong-dong was announced on October 5, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul's each entry in the evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant association is entitled to membership as a de facto owner of an unauthorized building.

On November 25, 2014, H, the original acquisitor of the instant building, issued to the Plaintiffs a letter of abandonment of the instant building, and thus, the actual owner of the instant building was the Plaintiffs.

Nevertheless, the defendant association did not recognize the plaintiffs who are actually owners of the building of this case as its members and recognized them as defendant D as its members.

Therefore, even though the defendants should recognize the plaintiffs as the members of the unit unit, they should cancel the administrative disposition plan that recognizes the defendant D as the members of the unit unit unit unit unit unit, and the defendant D should issue a rejection disposition against the application for unit unit.

In addition, the Defendants.