2. The costs of the lawsuit include the costs incurred by the supplementary participation.

A. The intervenor was established on January 26, 2007 with the approval of the establishment of an association from the defendant in order to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project by making the Seongdong-gu Seoul Seongdong-gu Seoul project implementation rearrangement zone as the project implementation rearrangement zone.

B. The Intervenor obtained authorization for the implementation of a project on September 21, 2007 from the Defendant; the authorization for the implementation of a project on March 14, 2013; and the authorization for the implementation of a project on February 27, 2014; and again, the authorization for the implementation of a project on August 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”); and the authorization for the alteration of a management and disposition plan on September 2, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff A was the owner of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Land E and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) within the above improvement zone.

The above plaintiff did not refund the lease deposit to the lessee of the real estate of this case, paid it by the intervenor, and received a favorable judgment regarding the claim for reimbursement.

In this judgment, the compulsory auction procedure for the instant real estate was in progress with the title of execution, and the third party paid the successful bid price, thereby losing ownership on April 14, 2015, and accordingly losing the status of union members.

The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant under this Court 2015Guhap12632 on September 2, 2015, seeking revocation of the disposition that revised the management and disposition plan, and received the judgment of dismissal on March 11, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 4, 5 evidence, Eul 1 to 5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate or not, the defendant raised after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit of this case, and thus, the defense of this case is unlawful.

Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that a suit for cancellation shall be filed within 90 days from the date when the existence of the disposition is known, and within one year from the date of the disposition.

However, the fact that the instant disposition was taken on August 31, 2015 is as seen earlier, and the fact that the instant lawsuit was filed on October 12, 2016 is recorded.