1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On June 2, 2008, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do designated and announced the Gyeonggi-do public announcement C of the Gyeonggi-do as G urban renewal acceleration district as to D, E, and F Won as the G urban renewal acceleration district. On May 23, 2011, the Gyeonggi-do public announcement of the alteration of the urban renewal acceleration district and the urban renewal acceleration plan was publicly announced (hereinafter “previous determination”), and among them, the Minister of Gyeonggi-si as the urban renewal acceleration district B (hereinafter “instant improvement district”). On January 11, 2018, the Plaintiff changed the location of the area by the change of the administrative district around the time when the administrative district was changed.

It is a person who owns a total of 1,825 square meters of land and a building on the ground.

On April 19, 2012, in order to conduct an urban environment improvement project (hereinafter “instant project”) in the instant rearrangement zone, the said promotion committee and the supplementary intervenor (hereinafter “subsidized intervenor”) comprehensively succeeded to the status of the said promotion committee, the said promotion committee and the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor were to file an application for authorization to establish an association with the Defendant on May 11, 2012, accompanied by a written consent to establish the promotion committee by 33 owners of land, etc. (hereinafter “previous application for authorization”).

On September 13, 2012, the Defendant announced the alteration of the urban renewal acceleration district and the alteration of the urban renewal acceleration plan to K, K, which was publicly announced in Nam-si on September 13, 2012, changed the area of the instant improvement zone to the remaining 5,637 square meters, which excluded 521 square meters from existing 6,158 square meters

(hereinafter “instant modified determination”). On November 16, 2012, an assistant intervenor filed an application with the Defendant for authorization to establish an association (hereinafter “instant application for authorization”) accompanied by 36 owners of land, etc. (33 persons consenting to the promotion committee - 4 persons consenting to the establishment of an association, one withdrawing person)’s consent (hereinafter “each consent of this case”).

At the time of application for authorization of this case.