1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs, including the cost of supplementary participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 14, 2014, the Defendant filed an application with the Defendant for a construction permit that newly constructs apartment houses and one Dong of neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) with the 12 households with the 12th underground floors, the 7th underground floors of the building area of 359.03 square meters, total floor area (for calculating the floor area ratio), 1,727.36 square meters (for calculating the floor area ratio) on the ground of 871 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) owned by him/her, and the Defendant permitted the construction of the instant building on October 14, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant building permit”). (b)

The Plaintiffs are owners of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government V 301-dong (hereinafter “instant loan”) 201, 202, 301, 302, 303, 401, 402, 403, 501, 502, and 602 of the sixth floor located in the due north direction of the instant land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a dispute, entry in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 (including the relevant number), Eul's Evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings in the case of 2015Guhap50863 and 2015Guhap55

2. The intervenors asserted by the Plaintiffs made the instant site height by means of molding works on the instant site, etc., and submitted a construction drawing stating the height of the instant site in a false manner, thereby obtaining the instant building permit from the Defendant.

However, if the numerical value of the height of the building site of this case is corrected, the part asserting the first floor of the underground floor of the building of this case is true, and thus, the building building of this case is unlawful in violation of the restriction on height of the building for securing sunlight, etc., restriction on height, building-to-land ratio, and floor area ratio.

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

(a) Even if a third party who is not the other party to an administrative disposition directly as to whether the standing to sue is equipped is infringed on the interests protected by law due to the administrative disposition in question, administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the disposition;