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

A. The Intervenor Union was authorized by the Defendant on May 27, 2003 to implement a housing reconstruction project with a size of 48,775 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City X-do.

B.1) On December 30, 2004, the Mayor of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government officially announced on December 30, 2004, the Mayor of Seoul Metropolitan Government approved and publicly announced the master plan for development of AD district with respect to the area of 1,156,00 square meters in Seoul Mapo-gu, AAAB, and AC, and on May 18, 2006, the Mayor of Mapo-gu publicly announced on May 18, 2006 that the Seoul Mapo-gu AF large scale of 64,635 square meters in the area to be planned for the improvement of the W housing reconstruction project. 2) On April 9, 2007, the Defendant announced the modification of the master plan for development of AD district with a content of increasing the area of the said area to 65,

3) On August 19, 2010, the Mayor of Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”) is a H published by Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 65,148 square meters (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”).

(4) On July 14, 201, the Defendant publicly announced a public hearing to AK as of September 1, 201 (the date: September 23, 2011) in order to determine an urban renewal acceleration plan for the housing reconstruction project in the instant rearrangement zone by the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public announcement of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, in accordance with Article 9(2) of the former Special Act on the Promotion of Urban Renewal (amended by Act No. 10761, May 30, 201) after publicly announcing a resident’s public inspection (public inspection period: from July 18, 2011 to August 1, 201) and to hold a public hearing to AK as of September 1, 2011 (the date: September 23, 2011).

C. The Intervenor Union held an extraordinary general meeting on June 1, 2012 as the business area increases by approximately 33% and approved an application for authorization for change of the establishment, etc., and filed an application for authorization for change of the establishment with the Defendant on June 4, 2012.

In this regard, the defendant is the rearrangement zone in this case under Article 16 (3) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter "former Act").