1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The defendant of the plaintiff (appointed party), the plaintiff F, G, and H.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on July 13, 2006 and June 21, 2007, the designation of the rearrangement zone and the designation of the rearrangement zone modification 1) the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on July 13, 2006 (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) shall be the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions

(2) On June 21, 2007, the Seoul Metropolitan Government Mayor designated and publicly announced the aggregate of 64,357 square meters of land size of Jdong, including Seoul Mapo-dong land, as a rearrangement zone to implement a housing redevelopment project. (2) On June 21, 2007, the Seoul Metropolitan Government Mayor designated and publicly announced the housing redevelopment project (hereinafter “instant project zone”) as an improvement zone to implement a housing redevelopment project (hereinafter “instant housing redevelopment project”).

B. A committee for the promotion of housing redevelopment project of this case was approved on November 29, 2006, with the consent of 699 persons from 863 persons, excluding 7 owners of land, etc. located within the instant project area, whose location is not verified at around 2006, and 4/5 or more of land owners, etc., who are the requirements for the establishment of the association under Article 16(1) of the former Urban Improvement Act (amended by Act No. 8785 of Dec. 21, 2007) (amended by Act No. 8785 of Dec. 21, 2007)

As a result of "Mapo-gu", the head of Mapo-gu approved the establishment of the association on November 29, 2006.

3) The promotion committee for the housing redevelopment project of this case is the Housing Redevelopment Project Association on December 5, 2006 (hereinafter “Defendant Partnership”) according to the approval for the establishment of the association on November 29, 2006.

4) However, some members filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of authorization to establish an association on the ground that they failed to meet the consent rate.

The Seoul Administrative Court rendered a dismissal judgment on the ground that there is no benefit of lawsuit (2009Guhap46146), but the Seoul High Court held that the defect that failed to meet the consent rate on June 30, 201 is serious and clear.