1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On March 27, 2009, the Defendant is a cooperative established to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project (hereinafter “instant project”) with respect to the housing area of 87,002 square meters in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G G G G on March 27, 2009.

The defendant obtained the authorization of the project implementation plan of this case from the head of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 31, 2010, and obtained the authorization of the project implementation on April 24, 2015.

On June 29, 2015, the Defendant publicly announced an application for parcelling-out for the project in this case, and notified the members of the same day a notice for the application for parcelling-out including proportional rates, outlined charges (limited rates of 108.38%, 87,312,143 won, maximum 104,9,376 won, etc. on the basis of the previous 34 square meters for each person subject to parcelling-out, and followed the procedure for filing applications for parcelling-out from the same date to August 22, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant application for parcelling-out”). The Plaintiffs, the owners of land, etc. in the project implementation district of this case, filed an application for parcelling-out with the Defendant in the procedure for application for parcelling-out

On May 21, 2016, the Defendant formulated a management and disposition plan based on the application for parcelling-out (95.12% for parcelling-out; hereinafter referred to as the “management and disposition plan of this case”) and resolved to approve the management and disposition plan at an ordinary meeting.

(hereinafter “instant resolution”). The head of Yangcheon-gu approved the instant management and disposal plan on July 8, 2016, and publicly announced it on July 14, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the judgment of the main claim of the entire pleadings are as stated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

The plaintiffs alleged to be illegal due to the lack of notification of the application for parcelling-out has expressed their intent to apply for parcelling-out to the defendant by trusting the details of repeated guidance by the defendant several times and the details of notification of the application for parcelling-out which is the direct basis for the establishment