1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall include costs resulting from the participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 10, 2009, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City publicly notified D, which publicly announced the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E 39,384 square meters (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”) as C urban renewal acceleration district.

B. On September 27, 2012, the committee for promotion of housing redevelopment and consolidation projects of the CB promotion zone (hereinafter “instant promotion committee”) obtained approval from the Defendant for establishment of the promotion committee aimed at establishing the housing redevelopment and consolidation project association with the aim of establishing the instant improvement zone as the scheduled area for implementation of the project.

C. On January 23, 2015, the instant promotion committee held an inaugural general meeting for residents and an inaugural general meeting for establishing an association, and applied for authorization to establish an association to the Defendant on April 2, 2015, along with the requisitioned written consent for establishing an association from the owners of land in the instant improvement zone.

On April 2, 2015, the Defendant approved the establishment of the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor’s Union”) pursuant to Article 16(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) by deeming that the instant promotion committee obtained the consent of 333 persons equivalent to 75.85% of the owners of land, etc. (37 landowners, 17 building owners, 384 landowners and building owners, and 1 superficiarys) in the instant improvement zone, from among the owners of land, etc. in the instant improvement zone.

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs are owners of land within the instant rearrangement zone.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 10 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is 439 owners of land, etc. in the instant rearrangement zone, and thus, the consent of at least 330 owners of land, etc. to establish an association is required in order to deem that at least 3/4 of the owners of land, etc., who are the requirements for approving establishment under Article 16(1) of the former Urban Improvement Act (amended by Act No. 13508, Sept. 1, 2015;

However, the defendant is presented to the defendant and the consent.