1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part resulting from the intervention is the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance that is to be used for this case is to be replaced by the annexed Form 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance (the list of the names of the persons who did not attend the residents' general meeting and of the persons who did not consent to the agenda items), and the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment is partially dismissed or the judgment is added as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it is to be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. The following arguments are added between the 18th and the 2nd of the first instance judgment on the part which was dismissed or added.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant’s assertion as to the validity of the written consent. ① As to the validity of the written consent directly supplemented by the owner of a plot of land, etc., the Intervenor urged some owners of a plot of land, etc. to provide a written consent in the form of a disturbance. However, in the case of JW, LX, LN, ED, LU, and EE, the written consent submitted by the said six owners of a plot of land, etc. is deemed valid, but it is insufficient to acknowledge that six owners of a plot of land, etc., including JW, have duly supplemented the written consent, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

② As to the validity of the written consent written by the public relations personnel, the Defendant’s Intervenor demanded from some owners of land, etc. the first part of the land, etc. the design outline and the project cost part of the former written consent was blank. However, in the process of supplementing the disturbance of the former written consent, the public relations personnel provided various joints, including the name of the public relations personnel and the members, etc., so the written consent in 102, the Defendant’s assertion that all of the written consent written by the above joints were legally supplemented and valid. However, the Defendant’s assertion that the written consent No. 53 alone, is insufficient.