1. The Defendant’s revocation of the authorization granted to the Plaintiff on December 15, 2014.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 12, 2010, the Plaintiff is an association authorized by the Defendant to implement a housing reconstruction improvement project in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 27,271 square meters (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”).

B. On February 28, 2014, the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) filed an application with the Defendant for dissolution against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “first application for dissolution”). However, on April 11, 2014, the Defendant rejected the said application on the ground that the consent rate of 210 of the entire owners of land, etc. was merely 48.39% with the consent of 434, and the consent rate was insufficient to meet the consent rate of 48.39%. (C) The Intervenor additionally received the written consent for dissolution of the partnership and again filed an application with the Defendant for dissolution against the Plaintiff on October 14, 2014 (hereinafter “second application for dissolution”). Upon its review, the Defendant deemed that the consent of 218 of the entire owners of land, etc. (206, among 410 association members), which corresponds to a majority of the entire owners of land, etc., and revoked the Plaintiff’s approval for establishment under Article 24-2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant disposition is unlawful since it did not meet the consent rate of 50% under Article 16-2 of the Urban Improvement Act, even though it did not meet the consent rate of 50%.

① Each written consent in the name of E, F, and G is forged among the 218 written consent that the Defendant recognized as a valid written consent for dissolution.

② The consent form of H’s name was affixed by a third party, other than the nominal holder.

(3) I shall provide a written consent at the time of the application for dissolution of the first place.