1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit include the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 29, 2012, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) obtained authorization to establish an association from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant authorization to establish an association”) and completed the establishment registration on July 2, 2012, in order to promote a housing reconstruction project on the parcel of 48,979.00 square meters (hereinafter “instant project zone”) outside the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, including the instant land.

B. Afterwards, the Intervenor obtained authorization for the implementation of the project from the Defendant, January 13, 2014 (hereinafter “instant project implementation authorization”), and received the authorization for the implementation of the project on May 14, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 8 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. To make entries in the attached statutes concerned;

3. Effect of authorization to establish the instant association and authorization to implement the project;

A. A building located on the instant land alleged by the Plaintiffs (L; hereinafter “instant building”) is a multi-family housing within a housing complex based on its substance, and meets the consent requirements of at least 2/3 of sectional owners and at least 1/2 of the land size by Dong when calculating the consent rate for establishment of a housing complex.

Since the Plaintiffs, who were the sectional owners of the instant building, did not consent to the establishment of the association, and did not meet the consent ratio requirements for the instant building, the instant authorization to establish the association is null and void, and on the basis thereof, the authorization to implement the instant project is null and void.

B. 1) The Defendant, on the premise that the instant building is not a multi-family housing within a housing complex, included the instant building in an area other than a housing complex; and on the premise that 329 consent (76.33%) out of total 431 land owners, 32,842.75 square meters of land size (68.19% of land size, 3/4 of building owners, and 2/3 or more of land size, the instant association establishment authorization is granted.