1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit include the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 12, 2005, the A District Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Promotion Committee (hereinafter “instant Promotion Committee”) held an inaugural general meeting of the Association on July 10, 2008 after obtaining approval for establishment from the Defendant. On April 1, 2009, the Defendant applied for one-lane authorization on April 15, 2009, and applied for one-lane authorization for establishment of the association to the Defendant on the same day.

B. On April 21, 2009, the Defendant approved the establishment of the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s partnership (hereinafter “instant partnership”) on the ground that 467 persons, among the owners of lands, etc., 615 (61 landowners, 61 building owners, 488 housing and land owners, and 5 State-owned and public land), met the consent rate prescribed in the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 10268, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter “former Act”).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiffs are owners of land, etc. located within the project implementation district of the instant association.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion of this case is null and void in that the disposition of this case is in a serious and clear manner as follows.

1) The instant promotion committee’s written consent for the establishment of the instant association, which was drafted by the committee for the establishment of the instant association, did not state “a summary and outlined cost of new construction buildings” as prescribed by Article 26(2)1 and 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions. However, the instant promotion committee applied for authorization to establish the association by voluntarily supplementing the aforementioned omitted portion. The Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that some of the above were voluntarily supplemented, considered the written consent of the establishment. 2) The said written consent was valid.