1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Intervenor Association was authorized by the Defendant on May 27, 2003 to implement a housing reconstruction project with a size of 48,775 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. 1) On December 30, 2004, the Mayor of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced D on December 30, 2004, approved and publicly announced the master development plan of the new town zone B with respect to the size of 1,156,00 square meters in Seoul Mapo-gu, Seoul, F, G, H, and H, and on May 18, 2006, he designated and publicly announced as the zone B2 as the zone to be planned for the rearrangement of the housing reconstruction project in the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public announcement. 2) On April 9, 2007, the Defendant published the modification of the master plan for the development of the new town zone with the content of increasing the size of 65,148 square meters in the said zone to K as of April 9, 2007.

3) On August 19, 2010, the Mayor of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”) is the 65,148 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”).

(4) On July 14, 201, the Defendant publicly announced the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public notice to publicly announce a public hearing to hold a public hearing (date: September 23, 2011) as NN on September 1, 201, in order to determine an urban renewal acceleration plan for the housing reconstruction project in the instant rearrangement zone, pursuant to Article 9(2) of the former Special Act on the Promotion of Urban Renewal (Amended by Act No. 10761, May 30, 201) after publicly announcing a resident’s public inspection (public inspection period: from July 18, 2011 to August 1, 201).

C. The Intervenor Union held an extraordinary general meeting on June 1, 2012 as the business area increases by approximately 33% and approved an application for authorization for change of the establishment, etc., and filed an application for authorization for change of the establishment with the Defendant on June 4, 2012.

In this regard, the defendant is not a housing complex under Article 16 (3) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter "former Act").