1. Of the lawsuits for review of this case, Article 451(1)4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the Civil Procedure Act

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records in this court:

Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant D”) is the executor of the above improvement project, which is a partnership established to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project with the size of 12,607.5 square meters in Busan Dong-gu, Busan as a rearrangement zone.

B. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant association is the owner of the building not registered in the Dongdong-gu Busan Metropolitan Government G located in the above rearrangement zone (1st floor housing, 38 square meters, 27.2 square meters, 3rd floor housing, 11.6 square meters, 11.6 square meters, 1st floor toilet room, 0.8 square meters, 2nd floor boiler room, and 3.2 square meters, etc.; hereinafter "the building in this case"). However, the defendant association has established a management and disposal plan that recognizes the defendant Eul as the owner of the building in this case and received the management and disposal plan from the head of Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter "Dongdong-gu") on September 29, 2016, and the head of Dong-gu Office publicly announced it on October 5, 2016.

C. Accordingly, on April 12, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, claiming that they are the owners of the instant building by Busan District Court Decision 2017Guhap1552, stating that the Plaintiffs are the owners of the instant building, and that “the Plaintiffs confirm that they are the members of the Defendant Union, and request the Plaintiffs to confirm that they are the right to sell the association members.” However, the said court rendered a judgment of incineration on the grounds that “the Defendant Union established a management and disposition plan with the content that the Defendant Union is the members of the Defendant E and received the approval plan from the head of the same Gu on September 29, 2016.” As such, the Plaintiffs cannot immediately seek confirmation of the status of the association members without seeking revocation or nullification of the above management and disposition plan against the Defendant Union, and it cannot be asserted against the remaining Defendants, other than the Defendant Union that made the management and disposition plan.”