1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant, including those resulting from the supplementary participation.

The court's explanation about this case is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the part concerning which appeal is made under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(A) The grounds for appeal by the Defendant do not differ significantly from the contents of the Defendant’s assertion in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence submitted in the first instance court were examined, the first instance court’s rejection of the Defendant’s argument is justifiable). The part of the first instance judgment, which was written by the Defendant, was “Article 11, Section 2 of the same Article” as “Article 19, Section 3 of the first instance judgment.”

Article 28 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions (Article 264 of the Civil Act) provides that “The co-owners shall not dispose of or alter the jointly owned property without other co-owners’ consent, even in calculating the number of consenters in the cancellation of the designation of the rearrangement zone.” If part of the rearrangement zone in this case is co-owned land, the expression of intent of landowners, etc. in relation to the designation of the rearrangement zone in this case has the nature of disposal of jointly owned property that requires the other co-owners’ consent. As such, it appears that the determination of one person representing co-owners in the above provision on the calculation of the number of consenters at the stage of the designation of the rearrangement zone is reflected in the legal principle on the disposal of jointly owned property in the implementation of the rearrangement zone. In addition, considering that the expression of intent of landowners, etc. in relation to the cancellation of the designation of the rearrangement zone in this case has the nature of disposal of jointly owned property, the determination of consent in the rearrangement zone in the designation of the rearrangement zone is also made Article 28 of the former Enforcement Decree.”