2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association established for the purpose of implementing a housing redevelopment project in the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Group B, 17,803 square meters (title of district: Zone A), and the Defendant approved the establishment of the Plaintiff on September 4, 2007.

B. On January 8, 2014, some of the Plaintiff’s members filed an application for dissolution of an association with the Defendant on the ground that “64 of the 118 persons consenting to the establishment of the association consented to the dissolution of the association” (hereinafter “application for dissolution of this case”).

Therefore, on April 24, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking the authorization to establish an association against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the two written consent to dissolution was defective, but at least 62 persons from among the persons consenting to the establishment of an association agreed to be dissolved.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 9 evidence, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s members co-ownership of land C and D among the Plaintiff’s members is jointly owned with the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E and D are reported as the representative members. Since C, who is not the representative members, consented to the application for dissolution of the instant case, C’s expression of intent should be excluded from the declaration of consent for dissolution of

B) Of the Plaintiff’s members, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, andO (hereinafter “F and nine others”).

The written consent for dissolution submitted by the Plaintiff is different from the written consent for the establishment of the association or written resolution submitted by the Plaintiff, and the manner of stating the address and telephone number is different from that of the written consent for the establishment of the association, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the same person was written. Thus, the Plaintiff’s non-member F and nine declarations should be excluded from the number of union members consenting to the dissolution of the association. 2) As the Plaintiff’s member submitted his/her intent to withdraw the application for dissolution to the Defendant before the instant disposition was issued after the instant application for dissolution, the above seven members’ declaration of intent to dissolve.