1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including those resulting from the participation, shall be all included.

1. Case history

A. On November 4, 2015, pursuant to Article 16 of the former Housing Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13805, Jan. 19, 2016; hereinafter the same), the Defendant publicly notified that he/she approves an urban housing construction project plan with the following contents:

(hereinafter “instant approval”). 1. Project name: Urban-type residential housing construction project

2. Project undertaker: C and 17 others, and the comprehensive construction of Dong residents.

3. Location and scale of the project;

(a) The above section: Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City U;

(b) Site area: 1,445 square meters;

(c) Zone: Class 3 general residential zone;

(d) Business scale: 2nd and upper floors, 5,427.78 square meters in total floor area, and urban-type residential housing (studio-type 149 households).

(e) Construction closure rate: 36.54%;

(f) Ratio of volume for use: 249.95%

4. Period of project implementation: November 2015 to December 2017.

5. Matters legally construed as permission, etc. under other Acts: Article 11 of the Building Act.

B. Around January 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for the revocation of the instant approval on the ground that the Plaintiffs, the owners of V-Road 238 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) adjacent to the said land, which were located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”).

On January 22, 2016 and May 2, 2016, the defendant sent a reply that the cancellation of the approval of this case is impossible because the approval of this case is a legitimate administrative act in accordance with relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant reply”), . [Grounds for recognition] of no dispute, entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion that the approval of this case is legitimate, must meet all the requirements for the approval of the project plan under the Housing Act and the Building Act. The approval of this case violates the provisions regarding access roads, contact conditions, and installation of arterial facilities under the Building Act and the Building Act, and thus it is unlawful, so the approval of this case shall be revoked.