All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Even if the specific judgment on the matters alleged by the parties in the second and sixth grounds of appeal is not indicated in the reasons of the judgment, it cannot be said that there was no error of omission of judgment, unless the judgment does not affect the result of the judgment.

(2) The defendants are not entitled to a suspended sentence in December 26, 2002. The defendants are not entitled to a suspended sentence in 2002. Thus, since they are not legitimate representatives of the plaintiff, a project implementation plan or a management and disposal plan formulated by the J is invalid. The procedure for filing applications for this case was completed after the lapse of the period prescribed in the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, which was enforced at the time of the public announcement of the project implementation authorization, and therefore, the management and disposal plan as invalid. The court below did not make an explicit decision as to the above, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

According to the records, the J was selected as the president of the partnership after the suspended sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment has expired, and the period of the suspended sentence has been determined, and the fact that the procedure for application for parcelling-out in this case was commenced on March 23, 2006, which was within 21 days from March 3, 2006, the date of announcement

Therefore, the J did not fall under the disqualifications of executive officers under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents at the time of being elected as the president of the partnership, and the application procedure for parcelling-out was

On a different premise, the Defendants’ above assertion cannot be accepted.

Although the lower court did not expressly determine the Defendants’ above assertion, it did not err by omitting judgment in the lower judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

2. The remaining Defendants in the grounds of appeal are null and void since they elected J as the partnership head, the procedures for application for parcelling-out conducted thereby are unlawful, and the project implementation plan of this case is null and void without the new consent of the land owners, etc.