2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. (1) The Plaintiff is a reconstruction project partnership established to conduct a project to reconstruct multi-family housing (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”) on the ground of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City 18,684 square meters (the total area of 28,945 square meters was changed to the area of 26,945 square meters; hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”), and obtained authorization for the establishment of the housing association from the head of Gwanak-gu Special Metropolitan City on May 18, 1995.

(2) The Defendant, as the owner of the instant real estate in the instant improvement zone, consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff Union.

B. On May 14, 2013, the head of Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City revised the implementation plan of the reconstruction project of this case, which was publicly notified as E on the 16th of the same month.

(2) From June 3, 2013 to July 13, 2013, the Plaintiff publicly announced the application for parcelling-out to determine the period of application for parcelling-out and report on the application for parcelling-out as the period of application for parcelling-out, and prepared a management and disposal plan based on this, and decided on the proposal of the management and disposal plan at the special meeting held on September 7, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as the “resolution of this case”) and the proposed management and disposal plan (hereinafter referred to as the “instant management and disposal plan”).

In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of this case, the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment that "the resolution of this case is null and void" on the ground that "the resolution of this case also has no validity since the resolution of this case is unlawful as it did not fulfill the duty to notify the applicants for parcelling-out under the reconstruction project of this case, and thus, it does not guarantee the members the opportunity to choose whether to apply for parcelling-out." On May 10, 2016, the above judgment dismissed the appeal under Supreme Court Decision 2016Du40238 Decided September 8, 2016 and became final and conclusive around that time.