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 October 19, 2006, the Mayor of Seoul Metropolitan Government designated the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1,851,020 square meters as an urban renewal acceleration district. On April 3, 2008, the Mayor of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced D publicly announced D, as Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced D, designated the renewal acceleration plan to be designated as a rearrangement district under Article 13(1)1 of the Special Act on the Promotion of Urban Renewal for a housing redevelopment project of the size of 87,783 square meters for a housing redevelopment project of Seongbuk-gu in Seongbuk-gu Seoul as an urban renewal acceleration district (if designated as an urban renewal acceleration district, it is deemed to have been designated as a rearrangement district

B. On May 6, 2008, the AD Promotion Committee for Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant promotion committee”) established the rearrangement zone in this case with the approval for establishment of an association establishment promotion committee granted by the Defendant on May 6, 2008, and held an inaugural general meeting on February 17, 2009, and filed an application for authorization for establishment with the Defendant, along with the written consent for establishment of the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “instant consent”) submitted by 498 owners of land, etc. (76.61%) from among 650 owners of land, etc. in the instant rearrangement zone.

C. On March 20, 2009, the Defendant approved the establishment of the Intervenor.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The deceased F (the deceased F was dead on March 14, 2017 while the instant lawsuit was pending, and his heir took over the lawsuit) and the rest of the Plaintiffs were owners of the land, etc. in the instant improvement zone, and the land and buildings owned by them were accepted on January 13, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 24 through 29 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Intervenor’s defense prior to the merits

A. The summary of the defense prior to the merits is that the plaintiff G, H, and net F had obtained a final and conclusive judgment against the defendant after seeking a nullification or revocation of the disposition of this case against the defendant. Thus, the final and conclusive judgment is res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment.