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 housing redevelopment and maintenance project partnership under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), which has obtained an authorization for establishment from the government market to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project within 132,479 square meters B of Gu-si Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Plaintiff is a member of the Defendant.

B. On December 13, 2014, the Defendant held an extraordinary general meeting and decided to implement a project implementation plan consisting of KRW 489,422,514,930 in the estimated amount of the rearrangement project cost, and the parliamentary government market approved and publicly notified the project implementation plan as publicly notified D on March 31, 2015.

C. On August 27, 2016, the Defendant held an ordinary general meeting to formulate a management and disposition plan (hereinafter “instant general meeting”) and decided on a management and disposition plan (hereinafter “instant management and disposition plan”) of KRW 538,279,947,478 in the estimated amount of the rearrangement project costs to be KRW 538,279,478 in total, 855 members, with the consent of 476 members (Article 55.67% in total), and the parliamentary government market authorized and announced it as E in the notice at the time of the Government on November 4, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 4, 11, Eul evidence 3 through 10 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, based on the contents of reduction and omission by each item, violates Article 24(3) and Article 48(1)5 of the Urban Improvement Act by calculating the “amount of estimated cost of rearrangement project” among the instant management and disposal plan based on the content of reduction and omission by each item, and notifying its members. As such, the instant management and disposal plan’s resolution on the premise of such determination is unlawful. 2) The instant management and disposal plan’s increase of more than 10/100 of the cost of rearrangement project as stipulated in the project implementation plan in order to calculate the “amount of estimated cost of rearrangement project” to the actual level. However, the instant management and disposal plan’s increase of more than 10/10