1. On April 4, 2013, among the instant lawsuits, the head of the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City is the Defendant A District Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association.

Basic Facts

The defendant union is a housing redevelopment improvement project partnership established to implement a housing redevelopment project in the area of 165,070 square meters in Nam-gu, Busan. The plaintiffs are the owners of the land within the business area of this case.

On June 15, 2005, the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor publicly announced the designation of the improvement zone in this case as C of the Busan Metropolitan City's announcement on June 15, 2005.

On November 16, 2005, the Defendant Union obtained the authorization of establishment from the head of the Gu. At the time, the design outline was 2,823 households, and the project cost was 5,087 billion won according to the consent to establish the association.

On August 16, 2007, the Defendant Cooperative obtained approval of the project implementation plan from the head of the Gu, and the project implementation plan was publicly announced as D/D on August 22, 2007. The design outline was 2,850 households [16 square-type 72 households (rental apartment), 24 square-type 59 households (sale 428 households, rental apartment 175 households), 32 square-type 1,189 households, 43 square-type 760, 56 square-type 230 households), 550 billion won, and 4 years from the project implementation authorization date.

On July 16, 2009, the defendant notified the appraised value of the previous assets to the members, and received approval from the head of the Gu on May 10, 201 through the public announcement of sale in lots and the procedure for application for sale in lots.

Some partners filed a lawsuit against the defendant association against the invalidation of the project implementation plan approved by the Busan District Court 2009Guhap6071 as of August 16, 2007 and the cancellation of the management and disposal plan approved as of May 10, 2010. In the case of the first project implementation plan on May 13, 201, the above court was submitted before and after the establishment of the promotion committee and cannot be viewed as legitimate consent. Thus, the consent of 2/3 or more of the members is null and void if it is excluded from this, since the consent of the project implementation plan was submitted before and after the establishment of the promotion committee.