1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification or additional determination as follows. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be modified or additionally determined;

(a)Paragraph 13 of the judgment of the first instance court on the amended portion is amended, followed by the following addition:

The 50 owners of land, etc. in this improvement zone did not obtain consent from the owners of land, etc. in the project zone pursuant to Article 8(4)7 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. Accordingly, the Defendant Corporation asserted that the designation of the owners of land, etc. in the project zone was null and void, and filed a lawsuit against the head of the Defendant-Gu to confirm the invalidity of the designation of the project implementer. The Seoul Administrative Court recognized that 103 owners of land, etc. in the project zone consented on August 19, 2014, and dismissed all the claims of the owners of land, etc. on the ground that the consent requirement was met (Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap1024, hereinafter referred to as “the related case”).

) The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time, and the statement of Nos. 6, 7, and 8 of the first instance court’s No. 8 of the first instance court’s judgment “each statement of Nos. 6, 7, and 8 of the evidence” are as follows.

Part IV through 17 of the decision of the court of first instance are as follows.

1) The Defendant Corporation cannot designate the project implementer as the project implementer because it failed to meet the “approval requirement of the owners of land, etc. equivalent to at least 2/3 of the owners of land, etc.” under Article 8(4)7 of the former Act. Thus, the instant project implementation plan and the instant project implementation authorization based on such premise

The plaintiffs have reached the first instance.