1. All the Defendant’s dismissal ruling as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 dated November 27, 2017 regarding the Plaintiff’s application for adjudication of acceptance.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 18, 2014, the Plaintiff is a Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association established to implement a housing redevelopment project on the land of B, B, 32,869 square meters, etc., and on June 18, 2014, the king Mayor was granted authorization for the implementation of the first project (hereinafter “authorization for the implementation of the first project”). The period for implementing the project according to the authorization for the implementation of the first project was 36 months from the date of authorization for the implementation of the project (the expiration of the period, June 18, 2017). (b) The king Mayor issued the project implementation authorization (hereinafter “the second project implementation authorization”) to the Plaintiff on September 4, 2017, after the expiration of the period for implementing the first project implementation authorization for the first project. The period for implementing the second project implementation authorization under the authorization for the project implementation is “within five years from the date of authorization for the implementation of the project.”

C. After receiving an authorization for project implementation, the Plaintiff received an application for parcelling-out against its members, and filed an application for adjudication with the Plaintiff among the owners of land, etc. who did not file an application for parcelling-out within the period for application for parcelling-out, on four occasions, as shown in the attached Table 1.

However, the defendant judged that the plaintiff applied for adjudication without carrying out the investigation of legitimate goods, and made a ruling dismissing all of the applications for adjudication (hereinafter collectively referred to as "application 1") listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 to 3 in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the application of this case").

Meanwhile, with respect to an application for adjudication under paragraph (4) of the attached Table 1 list (hereinafter “instant application”), the Defendant failed to meet the requirements for a new public announcement by omitting the details of the public announcement prescribed in the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments, including the type and name of the rearrangement project, the location and size of the rearrangement zone, and the name of the project implementer, and thus, the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for a new public announcement.