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

A. On March 12, 2007, the Defendant designated the area of KRW 987,539,39,000 as an urban renewal acceleration district, which is an urban renewal acceleration district (hereinafter “urban Renewal Promotion Act”) under the Special Act on the Promotion of Urban Renewal, as an urban renewal acceleration district, and designated the housing redevelopment project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), and the area A, etc. within the said district as a housing redevelopment improvement district, and determined the renewal acceleration plan, such as the details of promoting urban environment improvement projects under the Urban Environment Improvement Act.

B. On September 17, 2010, Plaintiff A District Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) held an inaugural general meeting and obtained consent from a majority of the owners of land, etc., and obtained a disposition to establish an association from the Defendant on October 27, 2010.

C. However, some of the members of the Plaintiff Union filed an application with the Defendant for consent to dissolution of the partnership, and the Defendant revoked the authorization for establishment of the Plaintiff Union on February 10, 2014 on the ground that a majority of the owners of land, etc. applied for dissolution against the Plaintiff Union.

In addition, on February 24, 2014, the Defendant was scheduled to cancel the designation of the instant promotion district and housing redevelopment improvement zone because it could not achieve the purpose of the designation of the instant promotion district, and the owners of land, etc. in the zone who wish to continue to implement the designation after converting the said district into a rearrangement project under the Urban Improvement Act was given an administrative pre-announcement to the effect that they would prepare and request a written consent for conversion by April 2,

E. On July 7, 2014, the Defendant revoked the designation of the instant promotion district on the grounds that it is difficult to expand and connect infrastructure due to the cancellation of multiple project zones or the application for dissolution, and that it could not achieve the purpose of designating the urban renewal acceleration district, such as the public financial burden and the anticipated excessive burden on the owners of lands, etc.