The defendant is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project partnership (hereinafter, redevelopment project partnership) established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter, “Urban Improvement Act”) to implement a housing redevelopment project with a size of 64,453 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City as an improvement zone, and the plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter, the plaintiff and the selected party; hereinafter, the plaintiff et al.) and the selected party (the plaintiff et al., the plaintiff et

On August 18, 2006, 2006, the Committee for Promotion of the Relocation and Improvement of B Houses (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee for Promotion") which is the Defendant's telegraph, held an inaugural general meeting and passed a resolution on each agenda listed in

The defendant obtained authorization to establish an association from the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "head of Mapo-gu") on November 29, 2006 pursuant to Article 16 of the Urban Improvement Act.

(hereinafter. The defendant held an ordinary general meeting on May 23, 2007 to decide on each agenda item listed in the separate sheet No. 2, including the agenda item on the project implementation authorization (approval). Accordingly, the defendant obtained the project implementation authorization from the head of Mapo-gu on September 3, 2007.

Plaintiff

On October 30, 2009, some partners, including the Plaintiff, filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition approving the establishment of the instant association (Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap46146). On July 22, 2010, upon receiving the judgment of dismissal, on June 30, 2011, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2010Nu27761) issued a judgment of dismissal, but on June 30, 2011, “the instant disposition approving the establishment of the association was invalidated because some of the written consent of the owners of the land, etc. submitted at the time of the application for the authorization was omitted and invalidated by omitting the statutory matters, thereby failing to meet the consent requirements of at least 4/5 of the owners of the land, etc. under Article 16(1) of the Urban Improvement Act, and the judgment of acceptance of the claim of the Plaintiff, etc. was dismissed on December 27, 2012 (Supreme Court Decision 201Du19680).

On the other hand, the defendant on June 5, 2008 from the head of Mapo-gu office.