1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) on August 10, 2007 in order to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant project”) with a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project district of 31,650 square meters in Guri-si, JJ-si, which is a project implementation district, and the Plaintiffs are the persons who own the land and buildings within the instant project district.

B. On February 11, 2008, the Defendant obtained authorization on a project implementation plan with a total floor area of KRW 74,723.877 square meters, building-to-land ratio of KRW 16.06%, volume ratio of KRW 225.90%, household number of KRW 225.90, household number of KRW 488 households on the ground, total project cost of KRW 127,820,00,000, etc. (hereinafter “the first project implementation plan”).

C. After that, on April 7, 2010, the Defendant held a general meeting on April 7, 2010 to increase the profitability of the housing redevelopment project and minimize the shares of the association members, and passed a resolution on a project implementation plan to change the total floor area into the 195 square meters with the consent of 300 union members, the total floor area ratio of 76,193.381 square meters, the building-to-land ratio of 15.30%, the floor area ratio of 229.52%, the number of households of 229.52% underground, the number of households of 15 to 22 stories, the total project cost of 101,574,00,000 won (hereinafter “the second project implementation plan”), and the old market approved it on May 31, 2010.

Accordingly, the defendant determined the period from June 24, 2010 to September 1, 2010 as the period for application for parcelling-out and received the application for parcelling-out from the members (as to 12 persons who did not apply for parcelling-out according to the authorization of the implementation plan for the first project), and 70 persons, including the plaintiffs, including the plaintiffs, did not apply for parcelling-out to the defendant during the period of the above application for parcelling-out.

E. On November 21, 2013, the Defendant held a general meeting on November 21, 2013 and held 235 members at the time (excluding those who did not apply for parcelling-out according to the authorization of the implementation plan for the second project) with the consent of 211 members, the site area is 33,739 square meters, the building-to-land ratio is 17.97%, the floor area ratio is 235.82%.