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

A. On March 12, 2007, the Defendant designated the area of KRW 987,539,39,000 as an urban renewal acceleration district, which is an urban renewal acceleration district (hereinafter “urban Renewal Promotion Act”) under the Special Act on the Promotion of Urban Renewal, as an urban renewal acceleration district, the Defendant designated the area of KRW 987,539,39,000 as an urban renewal acceleration district (hereinafter “instant promotion district”), and designated the area of KRW 3B, etc. in the said district as a housing redevelopment improvement district, and determined the renewal acceleration plan, such as the details of promoting the urban environment improvement project under the Urban Improvement Act, by designating the area of KRW 1D as an urban environment improvement district.

B. On February 24, 2014, the Defendant: (a) was unable to achieve the objective of designating the instant promotion district; (b) was expected to cancel the designation of the instant promotion district and housing redevelopment and rearrangement zone; and (c) was intended to cancel the authorization for establishment of the association; and (d) the owners of land, etc. in the zone who wish to continue to implement after converting the district into a rearrangement project under the Urban Improvement Act, prepared a written consent for conversion by April 2

C. On July 7, 2014, the Defendant decided to revoke the designation of the instant promotion district and the designation of the deep 3B Housing Redevelopment Zone for the reasons that it is difficult to expand and connect infrastructure due to the cancellation or dissolution of a multi-functional project zone, and that the purpose of the designation of the urban renewal acceleration district could not be achieved, such as the public financial burden and the anticipated excessive burden on the owners of lands, etc., such as the designation of the instant promotion district and the designation of the deep 3B Housing Redevelopment Zone for the reason that the Plaintiff union in the relevant zone did not file an application for the conversion of the rearrangement project under the Urban Improvement Act, and publicly notified

(hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of this case" / [based on recognition] The facts that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is the promotion district of this case and.