All appeals are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the Defendant’s Intervenor is the Defendant’s Intervenor.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 4 of the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s ground of appeal on January 31, 2017, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, asserted that the Defendant violated Article 16(2) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “former Act”) and submitted written consent on the establishment of an association after the Defendant’s disposition of approving the establishment of the association (hereinafter “instant disposition”). However, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s disposition still has legal interest in seeking revocation of the instant disposition, and that it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s subsequent submission of the written consent violates Article 16(2) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the recovery of legal interests and defects in administrative dispositions, or by omitting judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the

Supreme Court Decision 96Nu10379 Decided August 21, 1998 cited in the grounds of appeal by the Intervenor joining the Defendant is different from this case and it is not appropriate to invoke this case.

2. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, and the Defendant’s Intervenor’s grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and

A. As to the relevant legal doctrine (1) one building.