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. The reasons for this part of the disposition are as follows, and the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 6 up to 3 lines from 6 lines to 5 pages) is the same, except for the dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this part shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(hereinafter the meaning of the medicinal language used in this context is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance). 3. The portion of “H, I, K, L, and M” as “H, I, J, K, L, L, and M land” is raised as “H, I, J, K, L, and M.”

At the bottom of 3 parts, “The Promotion Committee for the Reconstruction of Apartment Units” part of “The Promotion Committee for the Reconstruction of Apartment Units” (hereinafter referred to as the “Promotion Committee”) shall be regarded as “the Promotion Committee for the Reconstruction of Apartment Units.”

5. The following shall be added to the following six lines:

“AH et al., a sectional owner of the instant commercial building, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant disposition with the Seoul Administrative Court on February 6, 2017 (Seoul Administrative Court 2017Guhap5352) (Seoul Administrative Court 2017Guhap5352). On October 20, 2017, the said court rendered a ruling accepting the Plaintiffs’ claim on the ground that the Intervenor did not obtain the consent of the sectional owners of the instant commercial building concerning the instant rebuilding project on the premise that the instant apartment and the instant commercial building were located within a single housing complex. As such, the Defendant appealed the Seoul High Court on the date of the closing of argument (Seoul High Court 2017Nu80907). On October 16, 2003, the Seoul Central District Court filed a lawsuit against the instant sectional owners of the instant commercial building, claiming a partition of co-owned property against the Seoul Central District Court on the instant land on which the instant building located on October 16, 2003.