2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On February 5, 2008, the Defendant: (a) changed the C urban renewal acceleration district by expanding the area of the urban renewal acceleration district already determined and located into 899.302 square meters; and (b) determined and publicly announced the urban renewal acceleration plan (hereinafter “instant urban renewal acceleration plan”) pursuant to Article 12(1) of the former Special Act on the Promotion of Urban Renewal (amended by Act No. 9321, Dec. 31, 2008).

B. On September 14, 2009, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant under this Court 2009Guhap37999, and sought confirmation of invalidity of the part of the urban renewal acceleration plan of this case, which decided Seodaemun-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”) as a park (promotion zone), and this court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on February 4, 2010.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above judgment and appealed as Seoul High Court 2010Nu7378, but the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on September 2, 2010. The Plaintiff re-appealed to the above judgment and appealed as Supreme Court 2010Du20409, but the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on January 13, 201, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 18, 201.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for reexamination as to the Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu7378 on February 25, 201 with the same court 201Nu69 on February 25, 2011. However, the above court dismissed the lawsuit for reexamination on July 29, 201, and the Plaintiff appealed as Supreme Court Decision 201Du20741, but the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on February 9, 2012, and the judgment became final and conclusive on the same day.

E. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for reexamination as to the Seoul High Court Decision 201Nu69 on March 7, 2012 with the same court 2012Nu28 on the same date. However, the foregoing court dismissed the lawsuit for reexamination on June 14, 2012. The Plaintiff appealed as Supreme Court Decision 2012Du14989, but the Supreme Court appealed as the Plaintiff on September 27, 2012.