1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. After completion of the redevelopment project, such as housing improvement in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu and 10 lots, the Housing Improvement Development Cooperative completed the registration of the establishment on May 27, 1989 by the shop owners who purchased the stores of commercial facilities (E apartment 108 Dong and 109 Dong and 109 Dong, hereinafter “A”) in the said project implementation district (hereinafter “E apartment 108 Dong”) established the Plaintiff for the purpose of the management of the market in order to obtain the permission of market establishment.

B. Pursuant to Article 6 of the former Wholesale and Retail Business Promotion Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4889 of Jan. 5, 1995), the Plaintiff received the permission from the Defendant to establish a market for A (mutual name: F in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, a site area: 4,518.41 square meters, building area: 14,890.82 square meters, store area: 7,801.092 square meters, store area: 341 square meters, store number: 341 square meters) on September 27, 1990, and performed the management duties of A after being designated by the Defendant as a market manager pursuant to Article 7(1)1 of the same Act on December 5, 1990.

C. After that, as the Distribution Industry Development Act was established by Act No. 5327 on April 10, 1997, the Plaintiff registered the opening of a superstore to the Defendant on December 31, 1998 (in relation thereto, a separate superstore opening registration was not required pursuant to the Addenda of the Distribution Industry Development Act enacted as above, but 150 retail operators who have a complaint against the Plaintiff’s market management prior to the enforcement of the said Distribution Industry Development Act are organized a G cooperative. The said union obtained authorization from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor on September 25, 1996, and the said union managed A on November 23, 1996 by reporting the succession of the market opening status to the Defendant. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the establishment authorization and the Defendant’s acceptance of the above report by winning the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor’s decision and the Plaintiff’s acceptance of the report, thereby restoring the status of the opening of a superstore again to the Plaintiff.).