1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 12, 2007, the Defendant designated the size of 2,434,728 square meters as an urban renewal acceleration district under the Special Act on the Promotion of Urban Renewal (hereinafter “Urban Renewal Promotion”), which is an urban renewal acceleration district, as an urban renewal acceleration district (hereinafter “the promotion district in this case”), and the small copies of 5B located within the district as a housing redevelopment improvement district and determined the renewal acceleration plan, such as the details of promoting the housing redevelopment project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. On February 24, 2014, the Defendant: (a) was unable to achieve the objective of designating the instant promotion district; (b) was expected to cancel the designation of the instant promotion district and housing redevelopment and rearrangement zone; and (c) was intended to cancel the authorization for establishment of the association; and (d) the owners of land, etc. in the zone who wish to continue to implement after converting the district into a rearrangement project under the Urban Improvement Act, prepared a written consent for conversion by April 2

C. On July 7, 2014, the Defendant determined that it is difficult to expand and connect infrastructure due to the cancellation or dissolution application of a multiple project zone, and that the purpose of designating an urban renewal acceleration district could not be achieved, such as the designation of the instant promotion district and the designation of small copies of the district 5B Housing Redevelopment Zone for reasons that the public financial burden and the excessive burden of owners of lands, etc. could not be anticipated. In addition, on the same day, the Plaintiff’s association in the relevant district did not file an application for conversion of the rearrangement project under the Urban Improvement Act, the Defendant decided to revoke the authorization for establishment of the Plaintiff association, and publicly notified as the Plaintiff

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 did not achieve the purpose of designating the promotion district of this case and small copies of the 5B house redevelopment and rearrangement zone, the designation of the promotion district of this case and the designation of the promotion district of this case among each disposition of this case.