1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 29, 2006, the Defendant established and publicly announced a master plan for urban and residential environment improvement in Cheongju-si, including the content that the Defendant would designate the F 89,200 square meters of Seoul Special Metropolitan City F Do Office (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”) as the area expected to be rearranged for the housing reconstruction project as the area to be rearranged for the housing reconstruction project.

B. On January 22, 2007, the G Housing Reconstruction Project Establishment Promotion Committee (Representative H; hereinafter “instant Promotion Committee”) obtained the consent of 312 persons from among the owners of the land, etc. on the 451 owners of the land, etc. of the instant zone scheduled to implement the project. On January 22, 2007, the Defendant filed an application for approval of the Establishment Promotion Committee with the Defendant on January 2, 2007. On the ground that the said Promotion Committee obtained the consent of 302 persons, a majority of the owners of the land, etc. in the instant zone scheduled to be 450 owners of the land, etc. (the consent rate of 67.11%) and approved the composition of the instant Promotion Committee on February 16,

(hereinafter referred to as “instant approval disposition”). C.

On September 19, 2008, the Defendant established and publicly announced an improvement plan with respect to D-Housing Reconstruction Project (hereinafter “instant project”) in order to designate the F 89,150 square meters of Cheongju-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F 89,150 square meters (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”) as the rearrangement zone.

On March 18, 2009, the instant promotion committee applied for authorization to establish the project of this case to the Defendant, and the Defendant, on the ground that the said promotion committee obtained the consent of at least 3/4 of the owners of the land, etc. in the instant improvement zone, which is the zone scheduled to implement the project, at least 3/4 of at least 422 of the owners of the land, etc. in the instant improvement zone, and approved the establishment of the Defendant’s Intervenor on June 8, 200

(hereinafter "Disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap's entries in Gap's 1 through 3, 5 through 7, and 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition in this case is invalid

A. The instant disposition by the Plaintiffs is unlawful for the following reasons, and its defect is so serious as to be invalidated.

1...