1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The intervenor is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project by setting the land size of 73,122.7 square meters in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City as a business area (hereinafter “instant business area”), and the plaintiff is the owner of the land in the instant business area.

(b) The progress of the designation of an improvement zone and the project is as follows:

On February 1, 2008, the details of the date of authorization for the establishment of a redevelopment improvement zone on November 1, 2007, the Defendant’s authorization on November 12, 2008, for the establishment of a partnership on August 26, 201, the Defendant’s authorization for the establishment of a partnership on April 18, 201, for the change of the rearrangement zone on April 18, 2013, the Defendant’s authorization for the change of the project implementation on May 22, 2014, for the change of the rearrangement zone (hereinafter “instant authorization disposition”), on February 17, 2015, the Defendant’s authorization for the implementation of the management and disposal plan (hereinafter “instant authorization disposition”), and there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition / [the grounds for recognition], Party A’s written evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8,

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful as follows. Although the Defendant ought to verify illegality through a review of legality and feasibility, the Defendant did not take measures to supplement or reflect the Intervenor’s illegality, the instant disposition for authorization was unlawful.

① The Defendant had granted the authorization to implement the project to the intervenor for a period of forty-eight months for the duration of the project, but the said authorization was invalidated due to the fault of the project implementation.

Since the defendant newly changed the project, the intervenor should evaluate the previous assets as of the date of authorization for the implementation of the project, but the sale procedure was conducted based on the date of authorization for the implementation of the project, so the sale procedure is unlawful.

② On May 22, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to alter the project implementation, and the content of the original project implementation plan is substantially changed, so an intervenor.