1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Association established for the purpose of promoting a housing redevelopment project in a single zone of 67 square meters and 53,624.48 square meters in Blackdong, Dongjak-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”).

B. On August 20, 2007, the Plaintiff was granted authorization for project implementation on the content that the Defendant constructs 13 and 811 households in the instant rearrangement zone, and received the authorization for project implementation on January 21, 2008.

The Plaintiff obtained each project implementation authorization from the Defendant on January 10, 208, July 3, 2009, September 23, 2009, and December 24, 2009. The project implementation authorization on July 3, 2009 is indicated as “a plan to improve educational environment and to utilize it as a community space for securing open Spanish in the region” as an urban management and review opinion in accordance with the principle of joint burden with respect to schools newly established to utilize it as a community space in the region, it shall be dealt with separately from Dongjak-gu (1,420 square meters) before the project implementation plan is approved.”

C. On September 7, 2011, the Defendant presented the amount to be borne by newly established schools in each district through the “Plan for the Joint Implementation of New Schools in Black Urban Renewal Acceleration Districts” (hereinafter “instant plan”), and the amount to be borne by the Plaintiff was KRW 69.1.9 billion.

Accordingly, on December 28, 201, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of a notice of payment of the newly established school charges of KRW 3,318,776,00 and KRW 2,869,962,00 on July 31, 2012.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On August 2, 2012, the Plaintiff announced the completion of construction on August 2, 2012, and announced the relocation on November 22, 2012.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 17 (including additional numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In full view of the circumstances delineated below the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant disposition is unlawful, and its illegality is serious and obvious, thus seeking the nullification of the disposition.

Even if the preliminary invalidation is not made, at least the cost of building site development and the cost of compensating for losses.