1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are all the plaintiffs, including the costs incurred by the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are owners of land, etc. located within the implementation zone of C Apartment Housing Reconstruction Project (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. On February 27, 2000, the Intervenor (formerly, ELD Construction Co., Ltd.) was selected as the executor of the instant project with the consent of 1,955 from 2,840 owners of lands, etc. located within the implementation zone of the instant project at the special general meeting of the C Apartment Housing Reconstruction Project Association, and 946 owners of lands, etc.

C. On August 23, 2003, the intervenor reported the selection of a contractor pursuant to Article 7 (2) of the Addenda to the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 6852, Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter “former Act”). However, on September 1, 2004, the defendant rejected the above report on the ground that “the landowner did not obtain consent of at least 1/2 of the owners of land, etc.” (hereinafter “the pertinent disposition”).

Accordingly, on November 30, 2004, the intervenor filed an administrative litigation against the defendant seeking revocation of the pertinent disposition (hereinafter “instant related lawsuit”). The defendant, on March 4, 2005, withdrawn the instant related lawsuit on March 14, 2005 upon receiving the said report (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. Although the Intervenor did not select the Intervenor as the contractor with the consent of at least 1/2 of the owners of land, etc., the Defendant accepted the Intervenor’s report pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Addenda to the former Urban Improvement Act, the instant disposition violates Article 7(2) of the Addenda to the former Urban Improvement Act.

In addition, Article 7 (2) of the Addenda to the former Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas is clear that its literal meaning is very clear and claim for modern construction and modern industrial development.