2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On June 28, 2007, the Do governor of the Gyeongnam-do designated 87,705 square meters (hereinafter “B area”) of Masan-si (hereinafter “Masan-si, Changwon-si, by combining Changwon-si and Changwon-si”) as a housing redevelopment improvement zone.

B. On October 22, 2007, the Msan City (which became the defendant due to the consolidation with the Changwon-si) approved the establishment of a housing redevelopment project association in the district B (hereinafter “redevelopment project association”) as of October 22, 2007.

C. On March 20, 2013, the redevelopment partnership filed an application for change of housing redevelopment improvement zone and improvement plan with the content of adjusting infrastructure expansion, floor area ratio, etc. to change the number of households with the Defendant.

On May 14, 2013, the Defendant made public and publicly announced the proposal for the designation of the improvement zone for housing redevelopment improvement project and improvement plan in the zone B zone E through the public announcement of Changwon-si for 31 days from May 14, 2013 to June 14, 2014.

In addition, on May 28, 2013, the defendant held a briefing session for residents on the designation of the above rearrangement zone and the amendment of the improvement plan.

E. On June 28, 2013, the Defendant heard the opinion of the Changwon-si Council, and issued a public notice on September 25, 2013 on the change in the rearrangement zone for the housing redevelopment project and the maintenance plan for the housing redevelopment project in the zone B on the website of the Changwon-si as the F Public notice on October 25, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

In addition, on October 30, 2013, the defendant published the instant disposition in the official bulletin of the Changwon-si.

F. On April 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the office of administrative appeals commission, the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed on the ground that 90 days elapsed from May 28, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 14 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 15, video, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

(a) a Party;