1. The plaintiff B's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff A's claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be incidental to participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a union established to implement the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project with the size of 51,096 square meters in Guri-si as a project implementation planning zone (hereinafter “instant project zone”). The Plaintiffs are owners of land, etc. in the instant project zone.

B. On March 14, 2011, the Intervenor’s general meeting of the Intervenor (hereinafter “instant inaugural general meeting”) was held to establish C Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “instant promotion committee”), which is a telegraphic person of the Intervenor, and on March 31, 201, filed an application with the Defendant for authorization to establish an association.

C. On April 22, 2011, the Defendant: (a) 419 owners of the land, etc. in the instant project zone (420 persons at the time of the instant inaugural general meeting; but (b) on March 25, 2011, the date of the instant inaugural general meeting, the owner of Guri-si E apartment operating 507, located in the instant project zone, was changed from F to H, the owner of Guri-si operating 301, located in the instant project zone; and (c) 335 owners of the land, etc. in the instant project zone were changed from F to 419 persons; and (d) approved the establishment of the Intervenor (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 2, 3, 11, 13, 14 (including spot numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1, 2, Eul 2, and Eul 2, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the plaintiff A’s lawsuit is legitimate

A. The Intervenor’s assertion that Plaintiff A did not have the status of union members at the time of the instant disposition, as well as at the time of the resolution by the general assembly of this case. Therefore, Plaintiff A did not have the standing to dispute the validity of the instant disposition.

In addition, it is the abuse of rights that the plaintiff A would have pretended to own only one square part of the land within the project area of this case after the disposition of this case, and that the lawsuit of this case is solely for the obstruction of the intervenor's business.