All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Article 4 (1) and (3) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9444 of Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “former Act”) provides that where the Mayor/Do governor or the mayor of a large city intends to designate an improvement zone or modify the designation of the remainder except minor matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the ground for appeal No. 1 shall undergo joint deliberation by the local urban planning committee and the construction committee established in the City/Do or the large city under Article 4 of the Building Act (hereinafter “construction committee”). In the case of modifying the building-to-land ratio within the scope of the building-to-land ratio under Article 12 subparag. 3 and 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 21679 of Aug. 11, 2009; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Act”), the maximum building-to-land ratio increase or decrease plan within the scope of the total floor area.

The judgment below

According to the reasons, the court below uniformly operates the designation of the rearrangement zone from the perspective of the whole city policy and urban planning of the city as well as the joint deliberation of the local urban planning committee and the building committee on the designation of the rearrangement zone.