2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is an urban environment rearrangement association, on September 18, 2009, which obtained authorization for the establishment of an urban environment rearrangement project from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant authorization for establishment of the association”) in the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F Il-gu 46,474m2 (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”).

B. On November 19, 2015, some owners of the land, etc. within the instant rearrangement zone, including the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “ intervenors”), filed an application for dissolution with the Defendant along with the written consent to dissolve the association (hereinafter referred to as “written consent to dissolve”), and the Defendant, on December 7, 2015, deemed that the application falls under the case of filing an application for dissolution of the association with the consent of a majority of the owners of land, etc. on December 7, 2015, pursuant to Article 16-2(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “former Act”), and announced the instant authorization to establish the association on December 10, 2015.

C. Meanwhile, at the time of the instant disposition, the Defendant deemed that the number of owners of land, etc. at the time of the instant disposition was 242 (including 4 state-owned and public land) and the 123 written consent for dissolution submitted (where co-owners of land, etc. submitted the written consent for dissolution, the entire written consent was considered as one written consent for dissolution; hereinafter the same shall apply) was invalid, and that the written consent for dissolution under G was omitted and invalid, and accordingly, the consent rate was calculated as 50.41% (i.e., 122/242) on the ground that

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 3, the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Defendant violated the duty to present the Plaintiff’s assertion 1, while rendering the instant disposition, did not state at all the content that the instant authorization for establishment was revoked, since there were several owners of the entire land, etc., and several of them agreed to be dissolved.