1. The Defendant’s management and disposition plan authorized by the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on December 8, 2014 against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project partnership established for the purpose of implementing a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) for the 12,245.80 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”) and obtained authorization for the establishment of the association from the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “head of Mapo-gu”) on May 16, 2008.

The plaintiff is a church that owns land and buildings located in the rearrangement zone of this case.

B. On January 19, 2012, the Defendant received the authorization from the head of Mapo-gu to implement the instant rearrangement project, and received the application for parcelling-out for multi-family housing (multi-family housing) and commercial buildings from February 14, 2012 to April 3, 2012.

C. On March 20, 2014, the Defendant obtained authorization for change of the project implementation from the head of Mapo-gu, and received application for parcelling-out for multi-family housing (multi-family housing) and commercial buildings from April 1, 2014 to April 30, 2014.

On August 22, 2014, the Defendant held a general meeting on August 22, 2014, and resolved on a management and disposal plan that contains the content of creating 3,4, and5 religious sites, the total size of which is 2,137.40 square meters in the instant rearrangement zone (hereinafter “instant management and disposal plan”).

The head of Mapo-gu authorized the instant management and disposition plan on December 8, 2014, and publicly notified the management and disposition plan on March 12, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, 13, Eul evidence 11, 16 (including relevant numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The Defendant’s main defense against the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is a person excluded from sale in accordance with the management and disposition plan approved pursuant to Article 48 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 12116, Dec. 24, 2013); thus, the Plaintiff is a person subject to cash liquidation under Article 47(1)2 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents

B. Judgment 1.