1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 24, 2008, the Mayor of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government determined the improvement plan for the urban environment rearrangement project and designated it as the rearrangement project zone for the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E and 75 lots (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project zone”).

B. Under Article 8(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Intervenor prepared a project implementation plan with himself as the project implementer as the owner of land, etc. in the instant rearrangement project zone and applied for authorization (hereinafter “application for authorization of this case”) to the Defendant on December 29, 2009.

C. On April 8, 2010, the Defendant issued an authorization for project implementation under Article 28(1) of the Urban Improvement Act (hereinafter “instant project implementation authorization disposition”), and calculated the consent rate of the owners of land, etc. as 82.95% (number of consenters 107 ± number of owners of land, etc. ± 129) and met the consent rate under Article 28(7) of the Urban Improvement Act.

On January 13, 201, after undergoing the procedure for application for parcelling-out, the intervenor obtained approval of the management and disposal plan from the defendant (hereinafter “instant management and disposal plan”), and notified the above management and disposal plan. The plaintiff was the landowner in the instant improvement project zone, but the plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out, and the decision of expropriation for the land owned by the plaintiff was completed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 5, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s disposition to authorize the instant project implementation is defective for the following reasons, and the defect is significant and obvious, so the instant disposition and the instant disposition subsequent thereto are null and void as a matter of course.

1. Where an association promotes an urban environment improvement project, 3/4.