1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall include the costs resulting from the participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 16, 2008, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association established with the authorization of establishment from the Defendant on May 16, 2008, and the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) and the designated parties are the owners of the land, etc. within the said Improvement Project Zone.

B. On September 7, 2011, the Intervenor held an extraordinary general meeting (hereinafter “instant general meeting”) and formulated a project implementation plan (hereinafter “instant project implementation plan”) and applied for authorization to implement the project to the Defendant on October 7 of the same year.

(hereinafter referred to as the “application for authorization of this case”).

On January 17, 2012, after examining an application for authorization of project implementation and a copy of the resolution of the general meeting submitted by a participant, the Defendant approved the instant project implementation plan on January 17, 2012 (hereinafter “instant authorization disposition”), and publicly announced January 19, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the authorization disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The project implementation plan prepared by the Intervenor (hereinafter “instant project implementation plan”).

) Since the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) is omitted regarding the “resident migration measures including temporary accommodation facilities”, the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement

(2) Since the project implementation plan of this case increases by approximately 45% compared to the time of the establishment of the association, the intervenor notified the above facts to the union members prior to the general meeting of this case, and required two-thirds or more of the union members to new written consent, and held the general meeting.