1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 24, 2008, the Mayor of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government determined the improvement plan for the urban environment rearrangement project as well as 10,544.9 square meters of land outside Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and 71 lots (hereinafter “instant improvement project zone”) and designated as a rearrangement project zone.

B. Under Article 8(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “the Intervenor”), the Intervenor prepared a project implementation plan with himself as the project implementer according to the qualification of the owner of the land, etc. in the instant rearrangement project zone, and filed an application for authorization (hereinafter “application for authorization of this case”) with the Defendant on December 29, 2009.

C. On April 8, 2010, the Defendant: (a) issued an authorization to implement a project under Article 28(1) of the Urban Improvement Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”); (b) calculated the consent rate of the owners of land, etc. as 80.30% (number of consenters 53 ± number of landowners ± 66) and met the consent rate under Article 28(7) of the Urban Improvement Act.

After undergoing the procedure for application for parcelling-out, the intervenor obtained approval of the management and disposal plan from the defendant on January 13, 201, and notified the above management and disposal plan. The plaintiff was the landowner within the rearrangement project zone in this case but did not apply for parcelling-out, and the decision of expropriation for the land owned by the plaintiff was

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul 1 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion of this case is defective in the calculation of the consent rate for the following reasons. Since the defect is significant and obvious, the disposition of this case is null and void as a matter of course.

1) The intervenor, at the 19th real estate owner’s consent status (Evidence A 4), shall be 8, 11, 21, 22, 31, 33, 34, 36, 42, 43, 45, 47, 51 through 53, 56, 59, and 64 (hereinafter referred to as “coverage”).