The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party), including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles as to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in the lawsuit, the court below is justified in rejecting the part of the lawsuit against the plaintiff (Appointed Party) and N among the lawsuit of this case on the ground that there is no legal interest in seeking a nullification of the disposition

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the benefit of lawsuit.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below as to the remaining grounds of appeal, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its judgment after compiling the adopted evidence, and determined that the report of the selection of the construction works in this case satisfies all the requirements of the former part of Article 7 (2) of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 6852 of Dec. 30, 2002 and enforced July 1, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act"), which received the report was lawful

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the application or interpretation of the former part of Article 7(2) of the Addenda of the former Act, or

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.