1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant Intervenor was established on January 26, 2007 with the authorization for the establishment of an association from the Defendant in order to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project by designating the Seongdong-gu Seoul Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul as a project implementation improvement zone.

B. The Defendant’s assistant intervenor obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on September 21, 2007 from the Defendant, the authorization for the implementation of the project on March 14, 2013, the authorization for the implementation of the project on March 14, 2013, and the authorization for the management and disposition plan on February 27, 2014.

C. F, the husband of the Plaintiff, was the owner of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Land and its ground building (hereinafter “instant real estate”) within the said rearrangement zone.

F did not refund the lease deposit to the lessee of the instant real estate, and after the Defendant’s Intervenor paid it, the F rendered a favorable judgment regarding the claim for reimbursement.

This judgment is in progress with respect to the real estate in this case as an executive title, and the compulsory auction procedure (hereinafter “instant compulsory auction”) was conducted, and the third party paid the successful bid price in full, thereby losing ownership on April 14, 2015, and accordingly losing the status of union members.

Around May 2015, the Defendant Intervenor completed the relocation and removal of the buildings of the members and tenants in the above rearrangement zone, and the Defendant issued a disposition to accept the Defendant’s report of commencement on May 29, 2015 to the Defendant’s Intervenor.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 8, 10, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the facts seen earlier prior to the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit, as the F did not perform its obligation to return its lease deposit, the F had the auction procedure for the instant real estate, thereby losing the ownership of the instant real estate, and it is difficult to view that the compulsory auction of the instant real estate was conducted through the unlawful procedure solely with the materials submitted.

In addition, the Plaintiff is the former owner and the Defendant of the instant real estate.