1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. All lawsuits concerning claims added in the trial shall be dismissed;

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, on October 10, 2003, designated and publicly announced the 1-1 urban environmental improvement zone of Jung-gu, Seoul as the 2003-298 Notice of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is the 1-24 square meters large 14,751.5 square meters (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”).

B. On December 2, 2004, the Defendant applied for authorization to establish an urban environment rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant project”) in the instant rearrangement zone, and the head of the Jung-gu Office approved the establishment of the Defendant association on December 16, 2004 (hereinafter “instant association authorization”).

C. On December 23, 2005, the Defendant obtained authorization from the head of the Gu to implement the project of this case from the head of the Gu, and subsequently modified the project implementation plan on January 5, 2007 and obtained authorization for modification.

The Plaintiffs were automatically admitted to the Defendant’s members under Article 19(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), who owned land, etc. in the instant rearrangement zone, and did not apply for parcelling-out by February 9, 2007, the period for filing applications for parcelling-out as notified by the Defendant after the completion of the said project.

Since then, the defendant failed to reach a consultation on cash settlement with the plaintiffs, applied for adjudication on expropriation of the land, etc. owned by the plaintiffs pursuant to Article 38 of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee made a adjudication on expropriation of the land, etc. owned by

(The same shall also apply to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor).

Article 11 of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation provides that “When a partner transfers the ownership of a building or the status of being selected as an occupant, etc.” due to the forfeiture of a member’s qualification, it refers to “when a partner fails to apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out.

F. On February 27, 2007, based on the result of application for parcelling-out, the defendant held a general meeting for administration and disposal and decided on approval of a management and disposal plan, and on June 207.