1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Case history

A. B An urban development project association (hereinafter “instant association”) is an urban development project association, the project implementation district of which was authorized to implement an urban development project according to the replotting method pursuant to the Urban Development Act (hereinafter “instant project”), with the overall population C 703,904 square meters (hereinafter “instant project area”) as the project implementation district in Yongsan-si.

The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate located in the instant business zone and is a member of the instant trade association.

B. On September 2, 2011, the instant association obtained authorization of a replotting plan from the Yongsan Market, and then designated a reserved land for replotting at the time of designation. According to the protocol of the reserved land substitution, the Plaintiff’s burden rate was 6.06%.

Since then, according to the development plan (amended) and the implementation plan (amended), the instant association announced the land substitution plan (amended) and the plan for the land substitution (amended) on May 14, 2015, and according to the plan for the land substitution (amended), the Plaintiff’s burden rate has increased from 6.06% to 22.02%.

C. On July 24, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disclosure of the list of the land substitution plan (excluding D block parts and personal information) among the details to be authorized as the instant association pursuant to Article 72(2) Subparag. 4 of the Urban Development Act in order to identify the reasons why the Plaintiff’s burden rate has increased from 6.06% to 22.02%. However, the instant association rejected it.

On January 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disclosure of the details of authorization of a land substitution plan (based on the standard area excluding the name of the owner, the depreciation area, and the burden of imposition) for the land in question with the mayor, which keeps the documents related to authorization of a land substitution plan for neighboring land owned by the Plaintiff. However, on January 18, 2017, the Yongsan City Mayor excluded personal information, if the content of authorization of a land substitution plan is disclosed, the land owner.