1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant was an association established for the purpose of implementing an urban environment improvement project (hereinafter “instant project”) in which Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Group is a rearrangement zone (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”), and obtained authorization to establish an association from the Defendant on December 1, 2008.

B. On December 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for dissolution of an intervenor association pursuant to Article 16-2(1)2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), along with the written consent to dissolution of some owners of land, etc., on December 28, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as "the application for dissolution of the partnership in this case").

On February 29, 2016, the Defendant returned to the Plaintiff on the ground that “An application for dissolution of the instant association does not satisfy the requirements for consent of a majority of the owners of land, etc. under Article 16-2(1)2 of the Urban Improvement Act (137 owners of land, etc., 66 persons consenting to dissolution, and 48.17% of the consent rate).”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant refusal disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap’s evidence 1, Gap’s evidence 5-1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Defenses and judgments on the merits of the Intervenor’s association

A. Although the Plaintiff owned each of the instant real estate, as the owner of the land, etc., the Plaintiff was in the status of an intervenor association, the Plaintiff became a cash liquidation agent by failing to apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out.

Afterward, the Intervenor Union deposited the compensation for expropriation in the future of the Plaintiff following the ruling of expropriation of each of the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on expropriation on April 22, 2016, following the completion of the registration of ownership transfer on each of the instant real estate.