2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

A. With respect to housing redevelopment projects of 130,636 square meters (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”), the DDD Establishment Promotion Committee applied for authorization for the establishment of the association to the Msan City on February 19, 2008 (hereinafter “Defendant”) (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”), as the Msan City was incorporated into the Changwon-si on July 19, 2010 in accordance with the Act on Special Cases concerning the Establishment of and Support for the Changwon-si, Chungcheongnam-do.).

B. On April 17, 2008, the Defendant: (a) consented 741 of the owners of the land, etc. in the instant rearrangement zone to establish an association (75.46% of the consent rate); (b) satisfied the statutory consent rate stipulated in Article 16 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “former Act”); and (c) accordingly, (d) decided to authorize the establishment of a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association

(hereinafter “instant disposition” and “instant association”). C.

The plaintiffs (appointed parties, hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiffs") and the designated parties are those who own land or buildings within the rearrangement zone of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1, Eul 1, Eul 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Attached Form 2 of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The parties’ assertion 1) The following defects exist in calculating the consent rate on the establishment of the association, which served as the basis of the instant disposition, and considering this, given that the consent rate of the establishment of the association falls short of the statutory consent rate, and the defect is significant and apparent, the instant disposition is null and void: (a) null and void consent ① null and void consent ① is included in G, the owner of the land, etc., such as Msan City F (hereinafter “Masan City”), but the consent of G is omitted, and thus the consent of G is null and void.

② The owner of H’s land and the building on its ground obtained consent from the IJ or the Union, and thus the consent is null and void.

(3) The consent is null and void because a certificate of seal impression is not attached to the NEA consent form, which is M owners.

(4) P.O.