1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s disposition of project implementation authorization rendered against the Intervenor joining the Defendant on July 26, 2012 is null and void.

1. Basic facts

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is an association established for the purpose of implementing an urban environment improvement project (hereinafter “instant improvement project”) with the size of 16,857 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a rearrangement zone (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”), and obtained authorization from the Defendant on December 1, 2008.

The Plaintiff is a person who owned real estate, such as land in the instant improvement zone.

B. The Intervenor established a project implementation plan to implement the instant rearrangement project (hereinafter “the first project implementation plan”), and applied for authorization to the Defendant, and the Defendant approved the first project implementation plan on July 26, 2012 (hereinafter “the first approval disposition”).

Since then, the intervenor received the application for parcelling-out from the members, the plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out.

C. Accordingly, the Intervenor: (a) formulated a management and disposition plan that classifys the Plaintiff as the subject of cash settlement and excludes the Plaintiff from the subject of sale; and (b) on July 7, 2015, the Defendant approved the above management and disposition

In addition, the intervenor filed an application for adjudication of expropriation of the above real estate with the local Land Tribunal in Seoul Special Metropolitan City as the intervenor consulted with the plaintiff to acquire the real estate owned by the plaintiff but did not reach an agreement. On February 26, 2016, the above local Land Tribunal rendered an adjudication of expropriation of the above real estate (hereinafter “instant adjudication disposition”), and the intervenor acquired the ownership of the above real estate on April 15, 2016.

On May 2, 2016, the Plaintiff sought a revocation of the instant adjudication disposition against the said local Land Expropriation Committee, and sought an increase in compensation against the Intervenor in preliminary terms, and the Plaintiff’s claim as to the conjunctive claim part.