1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

Basic facts are the Housing Reconstruction Project Association established to remove multi-family housing units with the size of 30,441 square meters in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and to implement a project to build new apartment units on the site (hereinafter “instant project”).

On September 9, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a security trust agreement with C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 11, 2013, which was based on the trust, among the shares of 77.381/7, 9208, among the shares of 30,441 square meters in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, the instant project site, and on its ground.

Defendant Intervenor filed an application for authorization to establish an association with the consent of 173 owners of land, etc. (95.6% of the consent rate) within the instant project zone, among 181 owners of land, etc., and the Defendant filed an application for authorization to establish an association with respect to the Defendant Intervenor on October 10, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant disposition” (hereinafter “instant disposition”), without dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition in the entirety of the pleadings, is unlawful for the following reasons, and is null and void since the defect is serious in light of the following: (a) evidence No. 1; (b) evidence No. 3-1, No. 2; and (c) evidence Nos. 4-1, No. 4-2; and (d) the purport

Article 16 (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”) intends to establish a cooperative, it requires the consent of at least 2/3 of the sectional owners by Dong (in the case of welfare facilities, the whole welfare facilities within the housing complex shall be regarded as one Dong) of multi-family housing within the housing complex and landowners who own at least 1/2 of land size.

However, although the building of this case is a welfare facility, the defendant assistant intervenor applied for authorization to establish the association without the consent of the owner of the commercial building, and the defendant issued a disposition to establish the association with excessive approval.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant Claim”).