1. The motion to intervene in the instant case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal and the selective claim added by this court.

1. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor filed an application for intervention during the trial of the first instance court regarding the legitimacy of the application for intervention.

However, the plaintiff assistant intervenor does not have the ability to sue in civil procedure as an administrative agency.

(A) The Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s application for intervention in the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is unlawful, since the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s application for intervention in the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s intervention in the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s intervention in the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s intervention in the Plaintiff’s

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable except for the following modified portions, and thus, citing the reasoning of this judgment by this decision.

(다만 제1심 공동원고 B의 청구에 관한 부분과 원고의 소유권이전등기청구에 관한 부분은 제외). ▣ 제1심판결문 3쪽 밑에서 6행 ‘성남시 수정구’는 ‘원고보조참가인’으로 수정 ▣ 제1심판결문 4쪽 2행, 6쪽 9행, 8쪽 11행, 9쪽 2행의 ‘보조참가인’은 모두 ‘성남시’로 수정 ▣ 제1심판결문 6쪽 4행 ‘2005. 5.경’은 ‘2004. 6. 3.경’으로 수정

3. Judgment on the argument in the appellate trial

A. As to the claim for damages caused by nonperformance, such as change of form and quality, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant had a duty to change the form and quality of the land under (b) before April 2003 to allow the Plaintiff to build a new building at the same time, and that the Plaintiff did not perform this duty, thereby resulting in the Plaintiff’s failure to obtain approval for use of the building No. 1 newly constructed therein.

However, with respect to land (CB), construction permission including change of form and quality of land was granted on May 15, 2002 and development permission was newly constructed on August 2004 by the Plaintiff, and thereafter, the Intervenor was refused to use the land, but the Defendant did not perform its duty as alleged by the Plaintiff.