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 grounds alleged by the plaintiff in the court of first instance while appealed from the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the plaintiff in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the plaintiff's claim even if each evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the court of first instance and the court of

Therefore, the reasoning for this court's explanation is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as to the following claims added by the plaintiff in the trial. Thus, this court's explanation is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. (1) The Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) stated that, at the time of the resolution of the general meeting made on August 12, 2017 at the general meeting’s meeting, it explicitly stated that the maintenance project cost is KRW 245,39,984,00,00, the improvement project cost is increased by more than 60 billion to its members cannot be deemed to have been sufficiently explained to its members and explicitly explained to its members. Therefore, the resolution of the general meeting made on August 12, 2017 would violate the voting rights by distorted its members’ decision-making. (2) As such, the management and disposal plan formulated based on this was unlawful since it was calculated and notified by calculating a rough charge on the basis of other amounts than the maintenance project cost under

3) The procedures for application for parcelling-out conducted without giving notice to the owners of lands, etc. who did not consent to establish an association are unlawful, and the management and disposal plan formulated based on such procedures is unlawful. (B) The Urban Improvement Act including the proviso of Article 24(7) of the former Urban Improvement Act provides for the necessary quorum when the improvement project cost increases by more than 10/100, and does not provide for the provision that explicitly explain the increased amount, ratio, etc. of the improvement project cost at the time of a general meeting resolution.

Therefore, the association's general meeting changes the rearrangement project cost.