1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation shall include the costs incurred by the defendant's participation.

1. Details, etc. of ruling;

(a) - The authorization and announcement of a project implementation plan, etc. - The name of the project: B housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter referred to as “project in this case”): The project implementer: the defendant’s assistant intervenor (hereinafter referred to as “participating”): The public announcement of the approval of a project implementation plan: Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public announcement of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 15, 201 [The Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter referred to as “Urban Improvement Act”).

(iii) project authorization and its notification shall be deemed to have been granted and given when authorization for project implementation has been given in accordance with Article 40(2).

B. An agreement on each of the instant lands has been reached - The Plaintiff became a cash liquidation agent by failing to apply for parcelling-out as the owner of each of the instant lands.

- On October 18, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Intervenor, who is the project implementer of the instant project, to acquire a settlement amount of each of the instant land at KRW 4,869,035,000 [the Land Compensation Act for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”).

) The special agreement was concluded on the basis of Articles 16 and 17; hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”). The special agreement stated that “this contract is made by the partnership after the loan contract with the bank was made, the settlement money is paid after the loan contract with the bank, and it also takes effect at the time of the cancellation of the provisional disposition (Seoul Northern Northern District Court 2015Kahap20282) in favor of the lawsuit in progress relating to each of the instant land, and the contract shall be null and void at the time of the loss.”

C. On March 30, 2017, the Intervenor requested the Plaintiff to re-consultation on each of the instant land.

- On April 19, 2017, the Plaintiff sent a written objection containing the content that the Intervenor could not respond to the demand for re-consultation, and that the adjudication of acceptance would be requested (hereinafter “instant written objection”).

- The intervenor in each of the instant lands.