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

A. On November 23, 2002, 252 of the 408 sectional owners of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment, held an inaugural general meeting of D apartment reconstruction association (hereinafter “instant association”) and resolved to select the reconstruction resolution and the Intervenor joining the Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) as the contractor.

B. The association of this case obtained authorization for the establishment of the association under Article 44 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6852 of Dec. 30, 2002) from the defendant on June 27, 2003 with the consent of the sectional owners additionally after the inaugural general meeting.

The Plaintiffs are members of the instant association.

C. The intervenor filed a report to the defendant as the contractor under Article 7(2) of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents ( December 30, 2002) (hereinafter “instant supplementary provision”). The defendant accepted the report of the intervenor on September 2, 2003.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In order to view the Plaintiff’s assertion as a contractor under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”) pursuant to the supplementary provision of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the association should be an executor who is selected by the association with the consent of at least 1/2 of the owners of the land, etc. after obtaining authorization for establishment of the association, and entered into a construction contract with the consent of at least 1/2 of the owners of the land, etc.,

However, the instant association did not meet the requirements for consent to re-building and did not select an intervenor as the time corporation without obtaining authorization to establish an association, and did not conclude the contract with the intervenor. Therefore, the intervenor does not fall under the first case.

In addition, since the resolution of the inaugural general meeting that selected the intervenor as the contractor was made after August 9, 2002, the intervenor falls under the second case.