1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including those resulting from the participation, shall be all included.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 25, 2012, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor designated and publicly announced the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government K K Il-gi 196,648 square meters (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”) as an urban environmental improvement zone under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.

B. The Intervenor joining the Defendant is a promotion committee organized to establish an urban environment rearrangement project association in the instant rearrangement zone, and the Plaintiffs are owners of land in the instant rearrangement zone.

C. On November 19, 2015, the Defendant: (a) held an ordinary general meeting on November 19, 2015, passed the “case of consent to the application for construction of a project plan”; (b) filed an application for deliberation on the construction plan (hereinafter “instant construction plan”) with the Defendant, along with the owners of the land, etc. in the instant rearrangement zone, M/684 written consent; and (c) on April 27, 2017, the Defendant accepted the application for deliberation of the said Building Committee (hereinafter “instant acceptance”).

On September 19, 2017, the Defendant requested the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor to deliberate on the instant building plan, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor presented the instant building plan as an agenda item to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Construction Deliberation Committee on September 20, 2018, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Construction Deliberation Committee passed a resolution on the instant building plan on December 11, 2018 on the condition that it reflects some pointed out.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 and 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. As to the plaintiffs' lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity on the premise that the acceptance of the plaintiffs' assertion by the defendant and the defendant's intervenor constitutes an administrative disposition, the defendant is convenient to ascertain the attitude of the administrative agency prior to the party's application for permission of construction under the Building Act, and to receive administrative guidance.