1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant is a church that was established on June 25, 2010 to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project with one-time area of 455-25 square meters in Eunpyeong-dong 45,242.8 square meters in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul as a rearrangement zone (designated by Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice No. 2010-106, Mar. 25, 2010; hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”). The Plaintiff is a cooperative that was established on June 25, 2010, and the Plaintiff owned 222-11 religious land in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul (the land category was changed from Jun. 23, 201 to one for religious use) and 261 square meters in the above ground and the second class neighborhood living facilities ( churches) and the second class neighborhood living facilities of 222-31 square meters in 17 square meters in 201.

B. On April 9, 2015, the Defendant received an authorization to implement the project from the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and received the application for parcelling-out from May 26, 2015 to July 14, 2015, and the Plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out to the Defendant.

C. On December 22, 2015, the Defendant: (a) held an extraordinary general meeting on December 22, 2015, and resolved on a management and disposal plan that includes the contents of classifying the Plaintiff as a cash clearing; and (b) obtained authorization from the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul Metropolitan Government)

(hereinafter referred to as the “management and disposition plan of this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the management and disposal plan of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant promised to maintain the plaintiff church from the stage of the promotion committee to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff consented to the maintenance project of the defendant.

However, while the defendant created the religious site in the rearrangement zone of this case, the religious site for the plaintiff church did not create, it was designated and authorized to implement the rearrangement zone, and the plaintiff was classified as a cash liquidation on the ground that the plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out.

Religious facilities shall be religious freedom, property rights, and property rights.