The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles and 1) Each administrative order of this case did not meet the grounds or requirements for the disposition, and the head of Seongbuk-North Korea did not specify or disclose to the Defendant what the Defendant’s act was in violation of any statute or provision at the time of issuing each administrative order of this case, and what specific grounds for the administrative order are.

In addition, each administrative order of this case is invalid on July 30, 2016, under the premise that the resolution of the general assembly is invalid, which states that "if the rearrangement project zone is cancelled, the members who submitted a written consent to cancel the rearrangement zone bear the burial expenses." The decision of the head of Seongbuk-gu, which states that the above resolution of the general assembly is invalid, is remarkably arbitrary and arbitrary.

Administrative orders under Article 77(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “former Act”) may only be issued for “reasonable implementation of maintenance and improvement projects.” Each of the instant administrative orders is rather a measure that obstructs the proper implementation of maintenance and improvement projects.

On August 29, 2016, the Defendant’s act of sending “the notice of confirmation of union members subject to the allocation of burial expenses” to the union members on the grounds that it was an act conducted on a defensive level to prevent the cancellation of the rearrangement project zone in relation to the movement of non-Subrogation union members’ application for cancellation of the rearrangement project zone, and is nothing more than the “execution of the rearrangement project” under Article 77(1) of the former Act.

Therefore, each administrative order of this case is not a case where the competent authority may order the cancellation, alteration, or suspension of a disposition pursuant to Article 77(1) of the above Act, or is illegal as it violates the law and regulations.

2) The “disposition” under Article 77(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the purpose of implementing the rearrangement project as a public corporation.