1. The revocation of the approval of the promotion committee granted to the Plaintiff on February 17, 2014 by the Defendant is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 5, 2007, the Plaintiff obtained approval from the Defendant promotion committee on the rebuilding project (hereinafter “instant project”) with the size of 115,787 square meters as the planned project site in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as the planned project implementation site.

With the consent of 396 of all owners of land, etc. at the time 722, the consent rate was 54.8%.

B. On February 17, 2014, the Defendant submitted to the Defendant a written consent for dissolution of 398 owners of the land, etc. belonging to the Plaintiff on December 16, 2013, among 766 owners of the land, etc., who were affiliated with the Plaintiff. However, upon the Defendant’s review, the Defendant determined that the written consent for dissolution of 387 cases (50.52% of the consent for dissolution) is appropriate, and issued a disposition revoking the approval of the promotion committee for the Plaintiff.

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(C) The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed the instant lawsuit on May 15, 2014. [Grounds for recognition: the fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, each entry, and the purport of the entire pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for calculating the number of co-owners

A) According to Article 19(1)1, where a parcel of land or structure belongs to multiple co-ownership, one member representing such co-ownership shall be deemed to be a member. The Defendant calculated the number by deeming some co-owners as two persons, not one co-owner. 2) The closing date of the written consent for dissolution received after the application for cancellation of the promotion committee was submitted to the Defendant from the owners of the land, etc., to whom the Plaintiff belongs, and the application for dissolution was filed (hereinafter “application for dissolution of this case”).

Nevertheless, the defendant's written consent to dissolution received in the application for dissolution of this case was also calculated as a valid written consent to dissolution and the disposition of this case was taken.

In the application for dissolution of this case made in the name of one of the co-owners, part of the written consent to dissolution shall be co-owners.