1. The defendant is among the management and disposal plans approved by the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on April 22, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on July 13, 2006 and June 21, 2007, the designation of the rearrangement zone and the designation of the rearrangement zone modification 1) the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on July 13, 2006 (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) shall be the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions

(2) On June 21, 2007, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor designated and publicly announced a total of 64,357 square meters of land size of Fdong members, including Seoul Mapo-gu land, as a rearrangement zone to implement a housing redevelopment project. (2) On June 21, 2007, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor designated and publicly announced a total of 64,453 square meters of land size of Fdong members, including Seoul Mapo-gu land, as a rearrangement zone to implement a housing redevelopment project (hereinafter “instant housing redevelopment project”).

B. On November 29, 2006, the promotion committee for the housing redevelopment project of this case is the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “head of Mapo-gu”) around 2006.

On November 29, 2006, upon filing an application for authorization to establish an association with the head of Mapo-gu Office, approved the establishment of the association, and registered the establishment of the association under the name of B Housing Redevelopment Project Association on December 5, 2006. (2) However, some members filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition to establish an association on the ground that they failed to meet the consent rate.

Although the court rendered a dismissal judgment on the ground that there was no interest in the lawsuit, the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment on June 30, 201 that the disposition to establish an association is invalid on the ground that the defect not meeting the consent rate is serious and obvious (2010Nu27761). The above judgment was appealed, but the appeal was dismissed on December 27, 2012, and the final judgment became final and conclusive.

(Supreme Court Decision 201Du19680).

An organization similar to a housing redevelopment project association (representative G; hereinafter referred to as "the first association similar organization") established by the authorization of project implementation on September 3, 2007 and the authorization of project implementation on November 29, 2006 under the authorization of the establishment of the association on November 29, 2006.

A. On May 23, 2007, for the housing redevelopment project of this case.