1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following “the part of the second instance order” and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. On the third side of the judgment of the first instance of the part, the lower court concluded that “the Defendant did not enter into a sales contract” as “the Defendant did not enter into a sales contract.”

O The Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act") shall be amended to "Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act").

O The fifth and tenth Urban Improvement Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act") shall be amended as the "Urban Improvement Act".

O Each "Public Works Act" in the fourth last sentence of the judgment of the first instance, the fifth, the second, and the second sentence of the fifth, the second, and the 9th sentence shall be regarded as "Land Compensation Act" respectively.

O Forms 6 through 7 of the first instance judgment are as follows.

1) The purport of Article 47 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents who did not apply for a parcelling-out or withdrawn land by a reconstruction association to the owners of land, etc. who did not make an application for a parcelling-out or withdrawn the land, etc. to be liquidated in cash, should be deemed to have determined to pay in cash without recognizing the return of the goods invested by the association when the association members are to be liquidated

(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da110477, 110484, Nov. 28, 2013). In light of the aforementioned facts and relevant legal principles, the Plaintiffs maintained the status of the Defendant’s union members by applying for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out under Article 46 of the Urban Improvement Act and the articles of incorporation after the public notice of project implementation authorization, and at the same time, assumed that the Plaintiffs applied for parcelling-out, and the Defendant has the obligation to contribute in kind to the Defendant.