1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation by this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance shall be as follows: the "Ordinance on Treasury Expenses" of the fourth 18 of the judgment of the first instance shall be as "Ordinance on Maintenance"; the "Defendant" of the second 20 of the judgment shall be as "the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor"; the "Defendant" of the fourth 15th 11 of the judgment shall be as "the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor Mayor"; and the "Defendant" of the first 16th 11 of the 16th 11 shall be as " January 21, 2008"; and it shall be as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the judgment on the defense that the defendant newly claims and the contents argued by the plaintiff, which are the same as the statement in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition to the following.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff should jointly bear the cost of creating the new school site was already incurred at the time of the determination and public notice of the urban renewal acceleration plan of this case. The instant disposition was an execution of the project implementation plan dated July 3, 2009, which was the above urban renewal acceleration plan and its subordinate plan, and is merely the Defendant calculated and notified the Plaintiff’s specific burden.

Therefore, in order to dispute the obligation of the Plaintiff to jointly bear the cost of creating the new school site, the Plaintiff must dispute the project implementation authorization disposition on July 3, 2009, attached with the conditions of the joint burden of the new school site. The Plaintiff constructed apartment and obtained the authorization of the completion, and announced the transfer on November 22, 2012, and there is no benefit to seek confirmation of invalidity of the project implementation plan after the new school site became effective. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. On July 3, 2009, the Defendant added the condition of “a newly established school shall be treated separately from Dongjak-gu prior to the change of the management and disposition plan (the size 1,420 square meters) in accordance with the principle of joint burden with respect to the newly established school” at the time of the disposition for the change of the project implementation to the Plaintiff.