2. The costs of the lawsuit include the costs incurred by the supplementary participation.

A. On February 26, 2009, the intervenor is a housing redevelopment project partnership with the establishment authorization granted by the defendant on February 26, 2009 in order to implement a housing redevelopment project with the housing redevelopment project area of 153,826 square meters in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I, Seongbuk-gu I (hereinafter “instant project”). The plaintiffs are union members of the intervenor.

B. On February 2, 2009, the H Housing Redevelopment Project Promotion Committee (hereinafter “instant Promotion Committee”) filed an application for authorization to establish the association with the consent of the establishment from the owners of the land in the instant project area, etc.

C. On February 24, 2009, the instant promotion committee withdrawn the above application on the grounds of documents supplement, and applied again for authorization to establish an association to the Defendant on the same day.

Upon examining the written consent to establish an association attached to the application form for authorization, the Defendant recognized that 880 of 1,152 landowners, such as land, consented to the establishment of an association and recognized that the consent rate (76.3%) is higher than the minimum consent rate (75%) stipulated in Article 16(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 10268, Apr. 15, 2010) and approved the establishment of an intervenor on February 26, 2009.

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1, 5, and 13 (including the number of each branch; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary 1 of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) Each written consent of the establishment of the association in the separate sheet No. 1 submitted by the promotion committee of this case to the defendant on February 24, 2009 is null and void for the following reasons (the plaintiffs are in the preparatory document dated October 24, 2017, compared with the first head of the association among the written consent of the establishment submitted by the promotion committee of this case to the defendant on February 24, 2009 when applying for authorization of establishment.