1. A B zone established by the Defendant on December 29, 2016 at the Housing Reconstruction Project Promotion Committee.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was an association established to implement the Housing Reconstruction Improvement Project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant rearrangement project”) by setting the size of 102,518 square meters as the zone scheduled to implement the project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant rearrangement zone”), and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”) were the owners of lands, etc. within the instant rearrangement zone, as indicated in attached Form 3, and revoked their consent after consenting to the establishment of the Intervenor.

B. On June 14, 2016, the Committee for Promotion of Establishment of the Housing Reconstruction Project Association (hereinafter “Promotion Committee”) filed an application for authorization to establish an association with the Defendant.

On September 6, 2016, the defendant rejected the application for approving the establishment of the association on the ground that if the withdrawn person from the establishment of the association is excluded from 100 persons, the statutory consent rate for approving the establishment of the association falls short of 3/4 of the land owners.

C. On September 26, 2016, a promotion committee filed an administrative appeal on the grounds that the withdrawal of consent does not change after the consent of the establishment of the association, 30 days have passed since the first consent date or since the inaugural general meeting was held to have no effect on the withdrawal. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal on September 26, 2016, stating that the withdrawal of consent was made after the consent of the establishment of the association, and that the contents of consent were identical, but the contents of consent were not changed because they were recognized to be identical, and thus, the revocation

Accordingly, on December 29, 2016, the Defendant: (a) deemed that 709 persons, among 941 owners of land, etc. in the instant rearrangement zone, agreed (75.35%) among 941 owners of land, etc. in the instant rearrangement zone; and (b) authorized the establishment of the Intervenor (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The entry in relevant Acts and subordinate statutes (attached Form 2);

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff et al. asserted.