1. The head of the Defendant Dong-dong, which was added by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) at the trial, shall be the head of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu.

1. The reasons why the court has made use of this part of the basic facts are as follows: (a) 3rd 6th tier of the judgment of the first instance; (b) 4th 9th 9 to 10th c housing redevelopment improvement zone (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”); and (c) 3rd 3rd c housing redevelopment improvement zone (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”); (c) hereinafter “instant improvement zone.”

In addition, the first project implementation plan in the 7th page 12, "the second project implementation plan", "the second project implementation plan", "the fourth project implementation plan", "the fourth project execution plan", and "the fourth project execution plan", and the defendant Mayor reduced the site area of a housing site to 90,951.7 square meters on January 21, 2015, and officially announced the alteration of the rearrangement zone by reducing the site area of a housing site to 90,951.7 square meters on January 21, 2015, and increasing to 31,053.6 square meters of the urban planning facilities for rearrangement infrastructure, and publicly notified the alteration of the rearrangement zone as KM in Busan Metropolitan City.

In addition to adding “1. Basic Facts” as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the same shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The designation and publication of the instant improvement zone and the announcement of the alteration of the improvement zone for the land of this case, which was made by the Defendant City Mayor, are as follows, and the defect is so serious and invalid.

(A) The former Urban Redevelopment Act, which served as the basis for the designation and public announcement of the instant rearrangement zone, was repealed, and the Urban Improvement Act enacted thereafter, has no legal basis for designating the instant rearrangement zone as the redevelopment zone.

(B) Of the instant improvement zone alteration announcement, the construction plan, such as “multi-family housing and neighborhood living facilities,” “multi-family housing and neighborhood living facilities,” would be in violation of Article 4 of the Act on the Maintenance

(C) In the designation, announcement, and announcement of amendment to the rearrangement zone of this case, the interests of landowners and building owners in the rearrangement zone of this case including the Plaintiff were not considered, and it was unlawful to infringe on the commercial zone adjacent to the rearrangement zone.

(d) this.