2. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

On June 5, 2014, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City designated the total area of 56,323 square meters of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Land (hereinafter referred to as “instant improvement zone”) as a housing reconstruction improvement zone and publicly announced it.

(2) The head of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office (hereinafter “the head of Guro-gu Office”) issued an authorization to establish an association (hereinafter “instant authorization to establish an association”) on February 17, 2016, pursuant to Article 16(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “former Act”) to promote the housing reconstruction improvement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) in the instant rearrangement zone.

After formulating a project implementation plan for the instant improvement project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project implementation plan”), the Defendant Association submitted an application for the project implementation plan and accompanying documents thereof to the head of Guro-gu, and the head of Guro-gu, as of November 15, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “approval disposition of the project implementation plan of this case”), announced the approval disposition of the project implementation plan of this case as of November 15, 2018, when both are referred to as “the approval disposition of the project implementation plan of this case and the project implementation plan of this case”).

The Plaintiff is the owner of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I, 993 square meters and the second floor above the ground located within the instant improvement zone (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

Defendant Union notified the Plaintiff on April 18, 2016 whether the Plaintiff consented to the establishment of the association, but the Plaintiff did not reply within the maximum period. Accordingly, the Defendant Union claimed that it shall exercise its right to demand sale by serving a copy of the complaint on August 12, 2016.