1. The plaintiffs' primary claims added by this court are all dismissed.

2. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs.

The reasoning for this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for a partial modification as follows. Thus, this case is quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Revision] Part of the Judgment of the first instance court is as follows: (1) Nos. 4, 11, and the last sentence are as shown in the following box.

F. Since then, although the instant association requested the Plaintiffs to conclude a sales contract for the newly-built commercial buildings, the Plaintiffs rejected the conclusion of the sales contract on the grounds that there is no ground to conclude the sales contract even if the Plaintiffs were to recover their membership status, since all of the 28 new commercial buildings were to be sold to the general public.

G. Accordingly, on November 8, 2016, the instant association filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee on the ground that the instant association did not reach an agreement even though it had completed the procedures for notification of a plan for compensation and consultation on compensation, with respect to the Plaintiffs.

H. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor demanded the instant trade association to supplement the grounds on which the Plaintiffs were cash liquidation, and the instant trade association changed the number of members of the commercial building from the existing “0” to “two persons” and submitted the documents stating that “the instant management and disposal plan, which obtained authorization from the head of Seongdong-gu Office on January 26, 2017 (hereinafter “instant third management and disposal plan”), and on February 8, 2017, after obtaining authorization from the head of Seongdong-gu Office on January 26, 2017 (hereinafter “instant third management and disposal plan”), the said management and disposal plan, which obtained authorization from the head of Seongdong-gu Office on January 26, 2017, submitted to the competent regional Land Tribunal the documents stating that the agreement was refused even if the Plaintiffs requested to enter into a sales contract from February 2, 2017 to February 7, 2017, accompanied by data, such as a copy of the written request for the conclusion of the relevant sales contract.”

The first instance court.