1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and B is the owner of land, etc. who owns the 1/3 share of the 1/3th of the building of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (the use of the 1st floor and the 1st floor is the parking lot, and the use of the 2-4th floor is the housing) in the rearrangement project zone.

B filed an application for parcelling-out with respect to the plaintiff 25-class multi-family housing, and thereafter filed an application for parcelling-out of neighborhood living facilities.

The Plaintiff notified that the order of priority should be determined pursuant to Article 30 (2) of the former Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments (amended by Ordinance No. 5417, Dec. 31, 2012; hereinafter “former Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Maintenance of Seoul”).

B filed a civil petition on February 12, 2019 with the purport that it is unfair that the order of the sixth order is determined on the website of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, etc. on February 26, 2019, the Multi Call Center, February 26, 2019, and March 8, 2019.

On March 18, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the advisory conference that “The result of the interpretation of B’s order of priority in the sale of neighborhood living facilities is the 2nd:4 law firms, the 6th law firm, and other opinions: one law firm, and the 1st:0 law firm, which will be reflected in the formulation of a revised management and disposition plan later.”

(hereinafter “Notification of this case”). (hereinafter “instant notice”), without dispute, written evidence Nos. 1 and 1 and 5 evidence Nos. 1 and 5 (if any, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply). The Defendant’s notification of this case’s defense of this case is lawful as to whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate or not through voluntary cooperation of the Plaintiff, and is merely an administrative guidance to achieve administrative purposes, and cannot be deemed as a disposition subject to administrative litigation.

Judgment

administrative guidance shall be within the scope of the affairs under its jurisdiction.