1. A resolution made by the Defendant on October 15, 2010 with respect to each item stated in the separate sheet at an extraordinary general meeting is null and void.

Basic Facts

The defendant obtained approval for the establishment of the Mapo-gu Office on November 29, 2006 for the purpose of promoting a housing redevelopment improvement project for 64,453 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

After completing the establishment registration on December 5, 2006, the defendant received the approval of the project implementation plan on September 3, 2007 from the head of Mapo-gu and the approval of the management and disposal plan on June 5, 2008.

Some of the defendant's association members filed a lawsuit disputing the validity of the administrative disposition plan, which was conducted after the establishment of the association, on the ground that some of the items among the consent forms received from the association members are vacantly.

On May 8, 2010, the defendant held a general meeting on May 8, 2010 and decided on the change of the establishment, and requested the change of the establishment on May 10, 2010.

Therefore, on May 31, 2010, the head of Mapo-gu recognized that the defendant met the consent rate requirements (at least 3/4 of the owners of land, etc. and at least 1/2 of the land area) under Article 16 (1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) among 836 members, and made a disposition for the change of the establishment of the association on May 31, 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition for the change of the establishment of the association”).

On October 15, 2010, the defendant held an extraordinary general meeting and resolved on the agenda items in subparagraphs 1 through 5 as shown in the attached list.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant resolution”. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) and the Appointor D (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”) filed a lawsuit against the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government seeking revocation of the instant establishment authorization. As a result, the instant establishment authorization disposition on August 16, 2013 by Seoul High Court 2013Nu9580 was issued at the statutory consent rate of at least 3/4 of the owners of lands, etc. under Article 16(1) of the Urban Improvement Act.