1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning for this case by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this case shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On the 7th decision of the first instance court, the following 10th decision stated as follows: “The plaintiff asserts that the management and disposal plan of this case contains a serious and obvious defect as follows, and that the entire management and disposal plan of this case is invalid in its entirety and in its preliminary decision, the part against the plaintiffs in this case is invalid.”

The 9.10 to 12. 10. 18. 15. 15. 19. 11. 1. 1. 1. 1...

The Plaintiffs withdrawn the assertion that “the arrangement or structure of a superior price is contrary to the principle of equity.”

9. On the 15th following the 15th page, “The plaintiff has a primary preliminary claim on the premise that there is a serious defect in the management and disposition plan of this case, and thereafter, the primary preliminary claim shall be considered together.”

13. Having no reasons for the 13th 3th 4th 13th 3th 4th , "No reason exists" (The Plaintiffs, while the project costs on the project implementation plan for which the authorization for modification was obtained are 283,387,00,000 won, the project costs for the notification of the application for parcelling-out in this case are 342,990,219,000 won increased above 20%, and the proportional rate, charges, etc. are calculated based thereon. The Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that there was no minimum data necessary for the decision on whether to apply for parcelling-out to the union members by making an inaccurate calculation of project costs without any reason, even though there was no change in the site area or the number of households of multi-family housing after the approval for modification of the project implementation plan, the proportion ratio, charges, etc. were also calculated. In other words, the Defendant opened an annual meeting on April 17, 2016, and the previous period for applying for parcelling-out in this case.