1. The appeal filed by the Intervenor 1 to 11 is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) except for the addition of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance to the following parts among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) as stated in the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and (c) Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or deleted parts] The "AJ" in Part 19, o, o, shall be incorporated into "BY".

o. From the last 6 to 7 lines 1.3 in this case, in accordance with the evidence Nos. 2, 2, 3, and 1, 2, in this case, the owner of the State-owned or public land shall not be deemed to fall under the "owner of land, etc." in the latter part of Article 16-2(1)2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and the owner of the State-owned or public land shall not be deemed to fall under the "owner of land, etc." in Article 16-2(1)2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. The "six persons" in subparagraphs 2, 3 of Article 8, "BP large 10 square meters" shall be changed to "10 square meters in 100 square meters in o," and a considerable number of members of the Association shall be deleted from the part of the consent No. 161 to 118, 16.00.

Whether a majority of the owners of a plot of land, etc. has consented to the determination (1) based on each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 18, 19, 41, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 26 (including paper numbers), C submitted an application for dissolution of a partnership to the defendant on September 20, 2012, accompanied by 123 written consent from 237 owners of a plot of land, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "first written consent to dissolution"), the defendant received such application (hereinafter referred to as "first written application for dissolution"), and C received the written consent from 120 owners of a plot of land, etc. on November 29, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "second written consent to dissolution").