1. The plaintiff (appointed party) shall dismiss the lawsuit against the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government;

2. Defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant Cooperative is the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association established to implement a housing redevelopment project in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government 3 large 64,452.96 square meters (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”). The Plaintiff (designated parties; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the designated parties are the owners of land, etc. who own real estate in the said project zone.

B. The first disposition of approving the establishment of the association and the lawsuit therefor (1) The committee for promoting the establishment of the B District Housing Redevelopment and Rearrangement Project Association, a whole of the defendant association, applied for authorization for the establishment of the association to the head of Mapo-gu upon obtaining the consent from the owners of land within the instant rearrangement project zone (hereinafter “the first consent”), and on November 29, 2006, the first disposition of approving the establishment of the association from the head of Mapo-gu Office.

(2) (2) On the ground that some association members failed to meet the consent rate, a lawsuit was filed to nullify the first disposition to authorize the establishment of an association based on the first written consent. The first instance court (Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap46146) rendered a dismissal judgment on the ground that there is no legal interest in the lawsuit, but the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2010Nu27761) issued a judgment of rejection on June 30, 201, to seek the invalidity of the first disposition to authorize the establishment of an association on the ground that it is an effective and appropriate means to resolve the relevant dispute, and the first disposition to confirm the invalidity of the first disposition to authorize the establishment of an association was issued on the ground that there is a significant and obvious defect that failed to meet the consent rate, but the appeal was dismissed and finalized on December 27, 2012 (Supreme Court 201Du19680, May 23, 207).