1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall include costs resulting from the participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 18, 2010, the Mayor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City determined and publicly announced an urban renewal acceleration plan (amended) that designates Q Il-gu, Seoul as an urban renewal acceleration district (if the urban renewal acceleration plan is determined and publicly announced, it shall be deemed that it is designated as an improvement zone under Article 13(1) of the Special Act on the Promotion of Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Act; hereinafter “instant improvement zone”) the urban renewal acceleration plan (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”).

B. On January 16, 2012, the O Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Promotion Committee (hereinafter “instant promotion committee”) was approved to revise the establishment of the instant improvement zone as the prospective project zone to be implemented by the Defendant.

C. On March 4, 2016, the instant promotion committee held an inaugural general meeting to establish an association and resolved on the agenda, such as the case of election of partnership officers, and applied for authorization to establish an association to the Defendant on March 21, 2016.

On May 31, 2016, the Defendant approved the establishment of the Intervenor joining the Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor joining the Intervenor”) by deeming that the consent of 1,196 owners of land, etc. in the instant rearrangement zone is 75.6% of the consent rate under Article 16(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 28, 2017; hereinafter “former Act”) satisfied all the requirements for the consent rate under Article 16(1) of the same Act.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant association establishment authorization”). [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the association establishment authorization of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion that the establishment authorization of the association of this case was made by including an invalid association establishment consent form as follows, and did not meet the requirement of at least 75% of the consent rate.

1 The defendant shall establish a promotion committee based on Article 13 (3) of the former Act that if he/she consents to the formation of the promotion committee, he/she shall be deemed to consent to the establishment.