1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 23, 2006, the Mayor of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government established and publicly announced the Seoul Metropolitan Government master plan for urban and residential environment improvement. ① The Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 22,00 square meters, ② the V 23,000 square meters, ③ the W 17,000 square meters, ④ the X 12,00 square meters, and ④ the X 12,00 square meters as each urban environment improvement scheduled area (hereinafter “Y or Z area”).

B. The Committee for Promotion of the Establishment of Housing Reconstruction Improvement Project in AA zone (hereinafter “AA zone promotion committee”) obtained the consent of 86 owners of land, etc. in the said zone from the Defendant on November 14, 2006, and obtained approval from the Defendant on November 14, 2006. AB zone promotion committee for the Housing Reconstruction Improvement Project in AB zone (hereinafter “AB promotion committee”) obtained the consent of 103 owners of land, etc. in the said zone with the consent of 159 owners, etc. on April 17, 2007. The promotion committee members of AB and AA zone promotion committee agreed to implement the reconstruction improvement project by holding a plenary meeting with the promotion committee members of the Housing Reconstruction Improvement Project Promotion Committee and the Y or Z zone on October 9, 2008.

C. The Committee for Promotion of the Establishment of the Housing Reconstruction Improvement Project Association in AC (hereinafter “instant Promotion Committee”) obtained consent from 83 owners of land, etc. in AB zone from 159 (52.2%) and from 74 owners of land, etc. in AA zone from 134 (5.22%) on July 24, 2009 on the change of the Promotion Committee. The Defendant approved the instant Promotion Committee on July 27, 2009.

Plaintiff

A and Nonparty D filed a lawsuit against the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “head of Mapo-gu”) on September 14, 2009 seeking the revocation of the above approval on the ground that the approval of the promotion committee of this case was conducted without the lawful consent of the owner of the land, etc. before the designation and public notice of the improvement zone and was illegal.