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 December 15, 2006, the Plaintiff: (a) removed worn-out and inferior housing units, etc. built on the ground of 68,700 square meters (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”); and (b) obtained on December 15, 2006 from the Defendant, the number of owners of land, etc. is 442; and (c) the number of consenting persons is 261; and (d) obtained approval from the Defendant for establishing an association promotion committee to implement a housing redevelopment project in A region.

After that, on April 25, 2007, the Plaintiff organized duplicate owners of lands, etc. among the owners of lands, etc., and obtained approval for modification from the Defendant on April 25, 2007, for the number of owners of lands, etc., 4

B. On November 6, 2013, C, the owner of land, etc. in A zone, filed an application for dissolution with the Defendant along with 192 written consent for dissolution (hereinafter “instant application for dissolution”). On December 4, 2013, C, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s approval (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “142 of the owners of land, etc., who agreed to organize the Promotion Committee, consented to dissolution by 276 persons (51.45%) from among the owners of land, etc., who agreed to dissolution, met the requirements prescribed in Article 16-2(1)1 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 7, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On June 30, 2014, the Defendant, as to whether the instant lawsuit is lawful, cannot proceed with the Plaintiff’s procedures such as authorization to establish an association and approval for a project since the instant improvement zone was cancelled on June 30, 2014, and thus, the Defendant’s defense that there is no legal interest in the lawsuit

According to the Eul evidence No. 9, the defendant's notification of cancellation of a housing redevelopment improvement zone, etc. in A area A on June 30, 2014, while the lawsuit in this case was pending, is recognized.

However, the cancellation of the rearrangement zone of this case is applied by the owner of land.