1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are due to the intervention of the third party by the defendant intervenor.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Defendant Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is an urban environment rearrangement project association with authorization granted from the Defendant on July 31, 2015 to implement an urban environment rearrangement project in H-dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant project area”) with a size of 85,490 square meters in a project area (hereinafter “Dong and lot number”) around 85,490 square meters in Dong-gu Special Metropolitan City, Chungcheongnam-gu, Incheon Special Metropolitan City. The Plaintiffs are the land owners, etc. in the instant project area, and the Intervenor is the Intervenor’s member.

B. A committee for the promotion of the establishment of an urban environment rearrangement project in H Zone (hereinafter “instant committee for promotion”) was approved by the Defendant on May 19, 2009 for the purpose of improving the urban environment in the instant project area, and thereafter designated and publicly announced as a rearrangement zone on May 23, 201.

C. After holding an inaugural general meeting of the association on February 7, 2015 (hereinafter “instant inaugural general meeting”), the instant promotion committee applied for authorization to establish the association on July 3, 2015. On July 31, 2015, the Defendant approved the establishment of the Intervenor on the ground that 400 (75.61%) out of 529 owners of the land, etc. in the instant project zone (5.61%) consented to the establishment of the association and met the consent rate prescribed in Article 16 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Amended by Act No. 13378, Jun. 22, 2015; hereinafter “former Act”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [The ground for recognition: Fact that there is no dispute, and entry of Gap evidence No. 1]

2. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the disposition of this case against the promotion committee of this case by the defendant is invalid because there is a serious and obvious defect as follows.

The promotion committee of this case, which did not provide information on estimated charges, has been amended by Presidential Decree No. 26369, Jun. 30, 2015, before obtaining consent necessary for the establishment of the association, Article 16 (6) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.