1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff (tentatively named the Plaintiff’s promotion committee for the establishment of a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association in the zone A (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s promotion committee”) obtained the consent of 183 owners of the land, etc. in the above business area (as the consent rate: 51.84%) from 353 owners of the land, etc. in the above business area, etc., on April 18, 2006, the Plaintiff (tentatively named the Plaintiff’s promotion committee for the establishment of a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association in the zone A zone (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s promotion committee”) and applied for the approval for the establishment of an association establishment to the Mayor on June 13, 2006.

(hereinafter referred to as "previous approval for establishment"). (b)

On July 1, 2010, Jinhae-si and Msan-si were integrated into Changwon-si on the designation and announcement of a housing redevelopment improvement zone. On May 21, 2014, the Defendant, following deliberation by the Changwon-si Urban Planning Committee, designated and publicly announced the Jinwon-si (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”) E large scale 80,610 square meters (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”) as a zone A for housing redevelopment zone.

C. A lawsuit filed against the Defendant seeking nullification of the approval for establishment establishment of an association establishment promotion committee on the ground that 105 owners of land, etc. in the instant rearrangement zone, etc. in the instant rearrangement zone, including the land in the instant rearrangement zone, had not been designated as a rearrangement zone and an improvement zone, were subject to a lawsuit seeking nullification of the approval for establishment of an association establishment promotion committee. The court rendered a favorable judgment on December 8, 2015, and the said judgment became final

(Seoul District Court Decision 2015Guhap21078 decided December 8, 2015, hereinafter “Related Cases”) D.

On January 21, 2016, 127 among the 357 owners of land, etc. in the rearrangement zone in this case, request the cancellation of the rearrangement zone pursuant to Article 4-3 (4) 3 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

The defendant is legitimate to make a request by 121 of them.