1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 12, 2007, the Defendant designated the land of Socheon-gu Incheon Metropolitan City as an urban renewal acceleration district under the Special Act on the Promotion of Urban Renewal (hereinafter “Urban Renewal Promotion Act”), which is an urban renewal acceleration district (hereinafter “instant promotion district”), and determined a renewal acceleration plan, such as the details of promoting a housing redevelopment project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), by designating the small copies and threeB areas within the district as a housing redevelopment improvement district.

B. On February 24, 2014, the Defendant: (a) was unable to achieve the objective of designating the instant promotion district; (b) was expected to cancel the designation of the instant promotion district and housing redevelopment and rearrangement zone; and (c) was intended to cancel the authorization for establishment of the association; and (d) the owners of land, etc. in the zone who wish to continue to implement after converting the district into a rearrangement project under the Urban Improvement Act, prepared a written consent for conversion by April 2

C. On July 7, 2014, the Defendant: (a) determined that the designation of the instant promotion district and the designation of a small copy of the 3B Housing Redevelopment Zone could not be achieved because it is difficult to link with the expansion of infrastructure due to the cancellation or dissolution application of a multiple project zone; (b) the public financial burden and excessive burden on the owners of lands, etc. could not be achieved; (c) the designation of the relevant promotion district and small copies of the 3B Housing Redevelopment Zone cannot be revoked on the same ground; and (d) the Plaintiff’s association in the relevant district would not file an application for conversion of the rearrangement project under the Urban Improvement Act; and (b) announced

On the other hand, on July 22, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for conversion of 214 members into a rearrangement project by filing an application for consent to conversion as prescribed by Article 7(4) of the Urban Renewal Promotion Act. However, the Defendant did not consent by a majority of the owners of lands, etc. on September 15, 2014, and the instant case had already been filed.