1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On March 23, 2006, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City determined and publicly announced the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Housing Rebuilding Master Plan, and on October 27, 201, the Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced RR publicly announced that the Seoul Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 35,587§³ is designated and publicly announced as a Q Housing Rebuilding Improvement Zone (hereinafter “instant rearrangement Zone”).

On August 29, 2006, the Q reconstruction project promotion committee (hereinafter referred to as the “promotion committee of this case”) was approved for establishment by the Defendant.

On February 27, 2016, the instant promotion committee held an inaugural general meeting and applied for authorization to establish an association with the Defendant to implement the instant improvement zone as a prospective project zone.

On April 22, 2016, the Defendant recognized that 258 of the owners of land, etc. in the rearrangement zone of this case (or 75.88% of the consent rate) consented to the establishment of the Intervenor association among 340 owners of land, etc. in the rearrangement zone of this case.

(hereinafter “instant authorization disposition”). The Plaintiffs are owners of land, etc. in the instant rearrangement zone.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number) and the purport of the whole pleadings of this case as to the legitimacy of the approval disposition of this case as to the legitimacy of the establishment of the association of this case, since there are invalid written consents among the written consent submitted by the promotion committee of this case, and if the consent rate is legally determined, the ratio of consent does not reach the ratio of consent stipulated in Article 16 (2) and (3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). Thus, the approval disposition of this case

The attached details of the relevant statutes shall be as specified in the statutes.

Judgment

If it is calculated that the plaintiffs did not submit a written consent, T is included in the calculation of the consent rate, but T is found to have the consent rate of 321 among the general list of the consent rate of the establishment of the association of Gap evidence No. 3.