1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising from the Plaintiff’s participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The J Housing Redevelopment Promotion Committee (hereinafter “instant Promotion Committee”) held an inaugural general meeting on March 28, 2015.

B. On April 8, 2015, the instant promotion committee filed an application with the Defendant for authorization to establish an association. On July 6, 2015, the Defendant rejected the said application on the grounds that it falls short of the consent rate of at least 75% (3/4) of the owners of lands, etc., as stipulated in the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Amended by Act No. 13508, Sep. 1, 2015; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act

C. On August 17, 2015, the instant promotion committee obtained consent from 1,783 owners of land, etc. to establish an association among 2,365 owners of land, etc., and applied for authorization to establish an association (hereinafter “instant application”). D.

On September 18, 2015, the Defendant approved the establishment of the Intervenor joining the Defendant by deeming that 1,775 of the owners of land, etc. 2,365 agreed to establish an association and the consent ratio was 75.05% (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion of this case is invalid because there is a defect of less than 75% of the ratio of consent of the owners of land, etc. under the Urban Improvement Act, and the defect is serious and clear.

3. Attached statements to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

4. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The allegation by the Intervenor joining the Defendant is enforced as a member of the land owner in the rearrangement zone, and is also subject to cash settlement even in the case of opposing the rearrangement project. As such, the disadvantage caused by the instant disposition is merely a de facto, indirect, and economic disadvantage, and it cannot be said that the disadvantage suffered from the status of an independent third party, who is not a member of the Intervenor

Therefore, there is no legal interest in claiming the invalidity of the instant disposition.

(b) judgment;