1. On October 15, 2015, the Defendant’s revocation of the authorization for the establishment of a housing reconstruction project association for the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative established for the purpose of implementing a housing reconstruction project by designating the 52,184 square meters (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”) as the project implementation district of Daegu-gu, Seo-gu, as the project implementation district, and obtained authorization for the establishment from the Defendant on June 5, 2012 pursuant to Article 16 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013).

B. On July 23, 2015, the Plaintiff’s member filed an application for dissolution of the partnership against the Plaintiff, along with a written consent for dissolution of the partnership with the owner of the land or building located in the instant rearrangement zone or the person with superficies (hereinafter “owner of land, etc.”) (hereinafter “owner”) of the land or building located in the instant rearrangement zone, but the Defendant was 276 owners of land, etc. in the instant rearrangement zone as of the said application date, and returned the application on the ground that the consent of 20 holders of the said 143 written consent submitted by C

C. On September 4, 2015, C filed an application for dissolution with the Defendant along with 141 written consent for the dissolution of partnership (hereinafter “written consent for each of the instant dissolution”). On October 15, 2015, the Defendant revoked authorization to establish an association with the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 16-2(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 13508, Sept. 1, 2015; hereinafter “former Act”) on the ground that the written consent for dissolution of partnership was submitted by 141, a majority of the owners of land A, etc. as of the filing date of the application for dissolution of partnership ( September 4, 2015).

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 through 145 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Among the written consent of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the written consent for dissolution under the name D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K is not written in writing, and it is not a valid written consent for dissolution. Therefore, it is not a member.