1. The defendant limited to the ABA Housing Redevelopment Project Promotion Committee on October 7, 2008.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 26, 2005, the committee for promotion of housing redevelopment and rearrangement projects in the Zone B (hereinafter “B district promotion committee”) promoted the establishment of a partnership to implement housing redevelopment and rearrangement projects within the area of 42,637.45 square meters in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government upon obtaining approval for establishment from the Defendant.

B. On November 29, 2007, the Mayor of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly notified D on November 29, 2007, publicly announced the decision of urban renewal acceleration plans for urban renewal acceleration districts including the designation of the area of 76,790 square meters (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”) for housing redevelopment projects.

C. On February 29, 2008, the Committee for Promotion of Zone B has changed the name of the Committee to the Promotion Committee for the Establishment of Housing Redevelopment and Improvement of Housing Projects (hereinafter “instant Promotion Committee”) and obtained approval for the change from the Defendant on April 4, 2008.

The promotion committee of this case requested the consent of 432 persons (76.19%) from among 567 owners of land, etc. pursuant to Article 16 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 944 of Feb. 6, 2008; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) to establish the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) was authorized to establish the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “the instant authorization disposition”) by holding an inaugural general meeting on July 4, 2008 and adopting a resolution of draft articles of association, etc. on July 15, 2008.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs are owners of land, etc. who own housing within the instant improvement zone.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the authorization disposition of this case is legitimate

(a) Attached Form 2 of the relevant statutes;

B. The criteria for judgment on the invalidation of an administrative disposition are insufficient to say that there is an illegality in the disposition in order to ensure that the administrative disposition is void as a matter of course.