The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The following circumstances can be acknowledged in light of the re-resolution of the Ordinance of this case and the summary of the contents thereof as to Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and Gap evidence 2-4 and the purport of the entire pleadings. A.

On July 30, 2015, the Defendant amended the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Management of Land Secured for Development Development, which was the proviso to Article 16(1) of the Act on Management of Land Secured for Development, and lowered the lending rate of the land allotted for development, which was 10/1,000 in the case of dwelling, and 20/1,000 in the case of non-residential areas, to the land allotted for development, which was the land relocated by the local government for the improvement of the downtown area before 1973 and the removal of defective houses in the flooded area.

(hereinafter referred to as “the special provisions of this case”). (b)

On September 9, 2016, the Defendant passed a resolution on partial amendment of the Ordinance on Management of Land Secured for Development Development Development (hereinafter referred to as the “Ordinance of this case”) to the Plaintiff.

The Ordinance of this case newly establishes the application of the special provisions of this case as Article 2 of the Addenda, and stipulates, “The same shall apply to the indemnity imposed for the first time after the enforcement of this Ordinance from among the recompenses for development outlay for collective settlement.”

hereinafter referred to as "the supplementary provisions of this case"

C. On September 27, 2016, the Plaintiff demanded a reconsideration to the Defendant on the ground that the Ordinance of this case was in violation of the statutes, but the Defendant re-resolutioned the Ordinance of this case on March 3, 2017.

The land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development of a group, which applies the special provisions of this case, shall be limited to the land A in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the land seems to be occupied and used without permission for use or profit-making or loan contract until recently.

2. Whether the Ordinance of this case is null and void as it violates any statute

A. The Plaintiff shall apply the loan rate, which serves as the basis for the imposition and collection of indemnity by the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for collective settlement of the land, retroactively to the imposition and collection of indemnity due to unauthorized occupation prior to the enforcement of the Ordinance.