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

A. On April 22, 2004, the Defendant approved the establishment of the promotion committee for the establishment of the reconstruction association in the E Apartment Zone 1 (hereinafter “instant promotion committee”), and on December 24, 2008, on the size of 24,859 square meters in Busan Northern-gu, Busan, the Defendant publicly announced the designation of the promotion committee for the reconstruction of the D Zone 1 (G public notification of Busan Metropolitan City).

B. On April 7, 2014, the instant promotion committee filed an application with the Defendant for authorization to establish a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association in the zone (hereinafter “instant association”). The Defendant demanded the instant promotion committee to supplement materials with the consent of at least 3/4 of the owners of land or structures in an area, other than a housing complex, pursuant to Article 16(3) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 13805, Jan. 19, 2016; hereinafter “former Urban Improvement Act”). The instant promotion committee withdrawn the application for authorization to establish the association on September 21, 2015.

C. On September 24, 2015, the instant promotion committee held an inaugural general meeting of the association, and applied again for authorization to establish the association to the Defendant on September 30, 2015. On October 16, 2015, the Defendant approved the establishment of the instant association on the ground that it met the consent rate prescribed in the former Urban Improvement Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiffs are the owners of land or buildings located within the project implementation district of the instant association.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and Eul evidence 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is unlawful due to the following defects, and thus, should be revoked.

1) Under Article 16(3) of the former Act, buildings owned by the Plaintiffs did not undergo safety diagnosis. (2) If an area which is not a housing complex is included in a rearrangement zone, a housing complex is not a housing complex for authorization to establish an association.