All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on evidence, and rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the instant authorization disposition is void as a matter of course, on the grounds that the instant authorization disposition constitutes a modification of minor matters under subparagraph 3 of Article 27 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act”), since it constitutes a modification of minor matters under subparagraph 3 of Article 27 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act”).

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding authorization to change the establishment of an association, or by failing to state the grounds therefor.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

(a) An association for a housing reconstruction project shall, in principle, meet the requirements for consent in the case of authorization for the establishment of an association that changes the location of the project zone and expands the area after its establishment, on the aggregate of existing zone and additional zone;

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18554 Decided May 28, 2015, etc.). Meanwhile, in establishing an association, where an area, other than a housing complex, is included in a rearrangement zone, a consent under Article 16(2) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “former Act”) should be obtained for an area, other than a housing complex, separately from obtaining consent under Article 16(3) of the same Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du25107, Oct. 25, 2012). B

The lower court: