1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is that the part concerning “...,” which was “from 15 to 12 to 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part concerning “..,” which was written by the court of first instance as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2)

(C) The meaning of the language used in the above shall be the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance) 2. 1. 2. (The part of the judgment, i.e., the effect of granting rights or interests to the other party, and the approval of the housing construction project plan under Article 16 of the former Housing Act is a so-called beneficial administrative disposition that entails the effect of giving rights or interests to the other party, and that is not provided for in Acts and subordinate statutes, the act of discretionary action is subject to the discretion of an administrative agency, unless otherwise expressly provided for in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. In such discretionary action, unless otherwise expressly provided for in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, an additional condition, time limit, burden, etc. may be attached to achieve administrative purposes, and it shall not be deemed unlawful as long as the contents of the sub-committee are able to perform, consistent with the principle

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu1698, Mar. 14, 1997; 2003Du12837, Mar. 25, 2004; 2003Du12837, Mar. 25, 2004). Such subsidiary officer may unilaterally add an administrative disposition while an administrative agency takes an administrative disposition, but prior to addition of subsidiary officer, it may add an administrative disposition, after consultation with the other party, set the contents of subsidiary officer in the form of

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da65500 Decided February 12, 2009). In light of the following circumstances, it is impossible to implement the requirements for the approval of the instant dispute in light of the legitimacy of the conditions for the approval of the dispute of this case and the aforementioned basic facts, etc.

(b) the principle of prohibition of unfair decision-making or the prohibition of excess.