2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

A. On October 6, 2009, the Governor of Gyeonggi-do, such as the designation of an urban development zone, the establishment of a development plan, and the authorization of an implementation plan, designated as a B urban development zone pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of the former Urban Development Act (amended by Act No. 9862, Dec. 29, 2009) and publicly announced as D public notification of Gyeonggi-do with regard to the size of 708,520 square meters per day, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si.

(2) On January 28, 2010, the Defendant (hereinafter “instant project”). The Defendant’s Intervenor, including the Plaintiff, passed a resolution to establish an association for the instant project by designating the owners of the land in the said urban development zone as its members, and obtained authorization from the Defendant to establish an association. On February 11, 2010, the Defendant was designated as the implementer of the instant project.

On August 26, 2010, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do approved the implementation plan for the instant project prepared by the Intervenor joining the Defendant and publicly notified it as notified E in Gyeonggi-do.

Since then, on June 4, 2010, the district development plan and the implementation plan concerning the instant project were amended several times by August 3, 2012, including the alteration of the district area to 710,870 square meters.

B. On April 12, 2013, the Defendant’s Intervenor changed the business area of the instant project area to 710,934 square meters at the general meeting of its members (an increase of 64 square meters) and submitted it to the Defendant following a resolution on the amendment of the plan for land use and the infrastructure plan among the previous development plan and implementation plan. The Defendant followed procedures such as consultation with the relevant administrative agency and deliberation by the Kimpo-si Urban Planning Committee on the amendment of the development plan and implementation plan.

The Defendant’s Intervenor prepared a modified district development plan and implementation plan, reflecting the above consultation and deliberation results, etc., and submitted it to the Defendant. On August 27, 2014, the Defendant modified the district area and development plan (land use plan and infrastructure plan) with respect to the instant project.