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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. The Governor of the Gyeonggi-do, on August 24, 2010, designated the 24,073m2 as an improvement zone (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”), through the designation of the zone for the redevelopment of housing B and the notification of topographic drawings (G notification by Gyeonggi-do Office No. 2) as an improvement zone (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”), and established a plan for the construction of rental housing with the following contents as an improvement plan:

2. Standards for the construction ratio of rental housing to a plan for the construction of rental housing under 15) Construction of rental housing shall be at least 17 percent of the total number of households in accordance with the construction ratio of rental housing and housing scale in a rearrangement project under Article 2009-51 (Revised August 13, 2009) publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (Revised August 13, 2009), and construction of rental housing of at least 30 percent of rental housing or of at least 5 percent of the total number of households

B. The Defendant was a cooperative established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Do Government Act”) to implement a redevelopment and improvement project for B housing (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project”) with the instant rearrangement zone as a project implementation district, and was established with the authorization for establishment of a government market on August 26, 201.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff owned D and 3 lots E-building F in the Dong Government City in the instant improvement zone.

C. On April 3, 2014, the Defendant obtained approval of the project implementation plan for the instant redevelopment project from the Government Mayor (hereinafter “approval of the project implementation plan of this case”) and received the application for parcelling-out from the members from April 23, 2014 to June 19, 2014, and the Plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out within the said period of application for parcelling-out.

On the other hand, in the project implementation plan approved by the defendant on April 3, 2014, rental housing was set as 76 households with 17% of the total household (447 households).

On August 4, 2015, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do changed and publicly announced the "plan for the construction of rental housing" in the improvement plan for the improvement zone in this case through H announcement of Gyeonggi-do.