1. The Defendant’s revocation of the authorization granted to the Plaintiff on November 30, 2012.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 12, 2010, the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the Defendant to establish a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association with the size of 33,693 square meters (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”). At the time, 31 owners of land, etc. in the housing complex in the instant rearrangement zone and 175 owners of land or buildings in an area other than a housing complex agreed to establish an association, among 33 owners of land, etc. in the housing complex in the instant rearrangement zone, and 237 owners of housing and land were all owners.

B. On September 20, 2012, C filed an application with the Defendant for revocation of the Plaintiff’s authorization since 123 owners of land, etc. (51.89%) among 237 owners of land, etc. in the instant improvement zone, including themselves, agreed to the Plaintiff’s dissolution (hereinafter in this case “the first written consent”), and thereafter on November 29, 2012, again on November 29, 2012, 120 association dissolution consent (hereinafter in this case, “the second written consent”) submitted, “the second written consent,” and D (EF owners), G, H, I, J, and KL submitted the second written consent without submitting the first written consent).

C. On November 30, 201 of the same year, the Defendant agreed to the Plaintiff’s dissolution and revoked the Plaintiff’s association establishment authorization based on Article 16-2 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11580, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] The entry in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and Eul’s Evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including all numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case is unlawful since it exceeded 50% of the consent rate stipulated in Article 16-2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas in various respects.

In the rearrangement zone of this case, four state-owned and public land property management authorities, such as Seoul Metropolitan Government, Dongjak-gu, Public Procurement Service, and Korea Forest Service, are land.