1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 11, 2008, the Promotion Committee for the Establishment of Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant Promotion Committee”) filed an application for authorization to establish an association with the Defendant accompanied by a written consent of association from the land or building owners of the Changwon-si, Changwon-dong BJdong (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”) designated and publicly announced as the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Zone.

B. On March 4, 2008, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant promotion committee obtained the consent (75.53% of the consent rate) of 358 owners of land or buildings in the instant improvement zone (69 landowners, 5 building owners, and 400 landowners) and approved the establishment of the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor’s Partnership”) pursuant to Article 16 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9444, Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “former Act”).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition of the Plaintiffs’ assertion was made without the consent of at least 3/4 of the owners of land, etc. as set forth below, and thus, illegal.

1) Since land and buildings owned by BL and BM are owned solely by BL, land and buildings should be separately calculated by the owners of land, etc.

The number of owners of land, etc. shall be calculated with a total of two persons; however, the defendant calculated the number of owners of land, etc. as one person, one of the owners of land, etc.

B) Since BN land is jointly owned by BO and AL and TPP land is solely owned by AL, each of the above land should be separately calculated by the owner of the land, etc. However, the Defendant omitted the owner of the BP land from the owner of the land, etc.