1. All of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a housing redevelopment project partnership established to implement a housing redevelopment project within the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Seoul Metropolitan Government 64,452.96 square meters (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”). The Plaintiffs are owners of land, etc. who own real estate in the instant rearrangement zone.

B. The first disposition to approve the establishment of the association and the lawsuit therefor 1) The promotion committee for the establishment of the CHousing Redevelopment Project Association, the Defendant’s overall transfer, is the owner of land, etc. in the instant rearrangement zone, and written consent for establishing the association

(2) The head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "head of Mapo-gu") shall receive

) An application for authorization to establish an association was made by the head of Mapo-gu Office on November 29, 2006 to establish an association (hereinafter “the first disposition to establish an association”).

(2) Some members filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the first disposition of approving the establishment of an association on the ground that the establishment of an association based on the first written consent fails to meet the consent rate.

The first instance court (Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap46146) declared a dismissal decision on the ground that there is no benefit in legal action. However, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2010Nu27761) declared a judgment confirming that the first disposition to establish an association is null and void on the ground that it is a valid and appropriate means to resolve the related dispute in a single way. The appellate court (Seoul High Court 2010Nu27761) declared a judgment confirming that the first disposition to establish an association is invalid on the ground that the defect failing to meet the consent rate is serious and obvious, but the appeal was dismissed on December 27, 2012 and became final and conclusive as it is.

(Supreme Court Decision 201Du19680).

On May 23, 2007, the defendant established with the first approval of the establishment of the first project plan and the first management and disposal plan was held to hold a general meeting on May 23, 2007 and the execution period of the improvement project is 48 months from the date of project implementation authorization.