1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are all the plaintiffs, including the costs incurred by the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 4, 2000, the Korea Land Corporation obtained the approval of the execution plan for D Housing Site Development Project (hereinafter “D Housing Site Development Project”) with respect to the land located in Cdong-si, Namyang-si from the Gyeonggi-do Governor, and E and F land (hereinafter “each land of this case”) were designated as a housing site development project zone.

B. The first approved project plan includes the content that the A2 site including each of the instant lands (hereinafter “instant site”) is developed as a block-type detached house site so that natural land can be preserved as much as possible. There was no content that the instant site slope should be cut off, and the retaining wall should be stockpiled, and there was no content that the building site creation work is done for changing the form and quality of the land. This also applies to the newly approved project plan.

C. On January 10, 2002, the Korea Land Corporation concluded a trust contract with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor on the instant site. On May 7, 2002, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor cut the slope of the instant site, and installed the retaining wall on the cutting surface, and started the site creation work to store stone on the upper and lower sides of the site, and completed May 16, 2005.

Plaintiff

A on April 25, 2013, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor purchased the F land in each of the instant lands from the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and the Plaintiff’s Party B purchased the E land on the same day, respectively, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 20, 2013.

E. On July 29, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit to newly build a house on each of the instant land. On August 14, 2013 and September 2, 2013, the Defendant filed a complaint with the Namyang Police Station in violation of the former Urban Planning Act on the ground that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, a project implementer, is a block-type detached house site, and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, as a project implementer, created a housing complex, without permission or consultation for development activities, changed the quality of land without permission or consultation, and confirmed the installation of structures without permission for development activities, and thus, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor was accused of a disaster at