1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On September 7, 2006, the Mayor of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government designated the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter referred to as "Ddong") E large E, 19,246 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "instant improvement zone") as a housing reconstruction improvement zone.

B Housing Reconstruction Improvement Project Promotion Committee (hereinafter “instant promotion committee”) established the instant rearrangement zone as a prospective project implementation zone, and obtained approval for establishment from the Defendant on May 14, 2007. On May 2, 2013, the inaugural general meeting was held on May 2, 2013, and applied for authorization to establish an association to the Defendant on September 2013, along with a written consent for establishing an association from 102 owners of land, etc. within the instant rearrangement zone (hereinafter “former consent”).

On September 17, 2013, the Defendant approved the establishment of an intervenor association pursuant to Article 16(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) on the ground that 101 (12 landowners, 12 landowners, and 89 landowners, and 108 landowners and building owners) consent (76.52% consent), among 132 owners of land, etc. (22 landowners, 2 building owners, and 108 landowners and building owners) in the instant rearrangement zone.

(hereinafter “instant association authorization”). Four owners of land, etc. within the instant rearrangement zone, including the Plaintiff, filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the association authorization under the Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap30353 on December 12, 2013, but the Seoul High Court dismissed on August 14, 2014. On July 23, 2015, the appellate court of the instant case dismissed 133 owners of land, etc. in the instant rearrangement zone (20 owners of land, 2 owners of buildings, 108 owners of land and buildings, 3 owners of State-owned land). Of 101 owners deemed as consenters, the Defendant did not affix their seals or submit their personal seal impressions to the F and G land that did not interfere with the written consent to the establishment of the association, except the State (Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs).