1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part concerning the conclusion of April 2) is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part concerning the conclusion of April 2), and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary part] At the second bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following is added to the fourth last day of the judgment of the court of first instance, “Plaintiff C”, “C co-Plaintiffs in the first instance.”

As to this, Plaintiff A asserts that the main sentence of Article 39(2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents should be limited to the acquisition of co-ownership shares taking into account the special characteristics of the status of co-owned real estate partners. However, Article 39(2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents only provides that the acquisition of the status of a partner shall be prohibited from acquiring the status of a partner to the assignee of real estate in a reconstruction project district designated as an overheated speculation district after authorization for establishment of a housing association is granted. If a part of co-ownership is transferred, it is against the legislative intent of Article 32(2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and it does not constitute an exceptional case where Plaintiff A is entitled to acquire the status of a partner pursuant to each subparagraph of Article 39(2) of the Act and Article 37 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Plaintiff A’s aforementioned assertion cannot be accepted.

“2) The allegation of H’s intervention in election.”