1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The defendant is the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 30, 2016.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 29, 2008, the Defendant is the Housing Redevelopment Project Association established with the approval of establishment from the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on April 29, 2008 to implement housing redevelopment projects by designating the area of 77,839.50 square meters in Seodaemun-gu Seoul as the rearrangement zone (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”).

B. The Defendant received the first application for parcelling-out from the members from September 1, 2009 to October 10, 2009 after receiving an authorization for project implementation on June 24, 2009. The Defendant received the second application for parcelling-out from October 15, 2009 to November 3, 2009. The Plaintiff, as the owner of the building with the land owned by Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, was the owner of the building with the land of 50 square meters and owned by the Defendant, was the owner of the building with the land owned by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff, as the owner of the above land, applied for parcelling-gu, Seoul, for parcelling-

C. The Defendant established a management and disposal plan based on the application for parcelling-out by its members, and received the approval of the management and disposal plan from the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 22, 2011

(hereinafter referred to as “previous management and disposition plan”). D.

On December 27, 2013, the defendant obtained authorization for change of the project implementation plan (hereinafter referred to as the "project implementation change plan of this case"), such as the change of a serious type of apartment house into a small and medium-sized square type (hereinafter referred to as the "small-sized project implementation plan"), and made a public announcement from March 17, 2014 to April 15, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the "public announcement of this case") that he/she shall receive an application for re-sale from the whole members for re-sale (hereinafter referred to as the "written notification of the application for parcelling-out"), and issued a notification of change of the same contents to the members of the association (hereinafter referred to as the "written notification of application for parcelling-out"), and received an application for re-sale from the members of the association for the period of application for parcelling-out (hereinafter referred to as the "period of application for re-sale") by extending on April 25, 2014.

E. The defendant considers the plaintiff as a person subject to cash settlement for the reason that the plaintiff did not file an application for re-sale during the period of application for re-sale.