All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant joining the Defendant.

1. We examine the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s ground of appeal

(1) The main text of Article 11(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Act”) provides that “A housing redevelopment project association shall select a constructor or registered business operator as a contractor by means of competitive bidding determined by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs after obtaining authorization for establishment of the association.”

This is the purpose of legislation to enhance transparency in the process of selecting a contractor and to prevent disputes among the members.

Article 13(3) of the “Standards for Selection of Maintenance Business Operators established by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs upon delegation of the said provision (Public Notice No. 2009-550 of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 200, hereinafter “instant Public Notice”) provides that “No related persons, such as constructors, etc., may conduct individual publicity against their members, and no association members or improvement project management contractors, etc. shall provide or promise to provide their members or improvement project management contractors with

In addition, Article 84-3 (1) of the former Urban Improvement Act provides that a person who selects a contractor or a person selected as a contractor in violation of Article 11 of the former Urban Improvement Act shall be subject to criminal punishment.

In full view of the legislative intent of Article 11 of the former Urban Improvement Act, Article 13(3) of the instant notification, and Article 84-3 subparag. 1 of the former Urban Improvement Act, even if the association passed a resolution to select a contractor through competitive bidding in a formal manner, the association or tendering company provided money and valuables to its members for violating the procedures or prohibitions stipulated in the Urban Improvement Act or the articles of incorporation during the process of selecting the contractor, and such unlawful act was to select the contractor.