1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the redevelopment partnership that promotes a housing redevelopment project in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant project zone”), and the Plaintiff (appointed parties; hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the designated parties D, E, F, G, H, and I are the Defendant’s members.

B. The Defendant promoted a housing redevelopment project as follows.

On October 19, 2006, on October 7, 2008, the designation and announcement of J urban renewal acceleration districts by the Mayor of the Seoul Metropolitan Government on January 7, 2008, the designation and alteration designation of J urban renewal acceleration districts, the determination of urban renewal acceleration plans and the preparation of topographic drawings by the Mayor of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on December 3, 2008, the establishment authorization of the defendant's association by the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on March 12, 2009, the public announcement of the decision on alteration of J urban renewal acceleration plans (Seoul Metropolitan Government Notice L) by the Mayor of the Seoul Metropolitan Government on October 21, 2010 (the public announcement M).

C. On April 11, 2014, the Defendant: (a) held a general meeting of association regular members and passed a resolution to amend the B Area Urban Renewal Acceleration Plan (hereinafter “instant amendment”), the content of which is to modify the land use plan, specific-use area plan, infrastructure installation plan, construction plan, etc. regarding the instant project zone among urban renewal acceleration plans; and (b)

8. 22. The present amendment was submitted to the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In order to propose an urban renewal acceleration plan to an administrative agency, the instant amendment was null and void since it did not go through the consent of the residents. 2) The instant amendment is deemed to seriously alter the existing urban renewal acceleration plan, and at least 2/3 of the owners of land, etc. and at least 1/2 of the area of land were required to obtain the consent of the increased quorum, and it did not go through the same method as the consent to establish an association.