1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the primary claim against Defendant B Urban Development Project Cooperatives shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 31, 2009, the head of Pyeongtaek-si established and publicly announced the “E Urban Development Project” under Articles 3 and 4 of the Urban Development Act as the public notification D of Pyeongtaek-si, and the Gyeonggi-do Governor approved the implementation plan as the public notification of Gyeonggi-do on April 1, 2010.

B. Around November 22, 2011, Defendant B Urban Development Project Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) which is an implementer of the above urban development project (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) decided to partly modify the existing urban development plan and implementation plan, and submitted it to the head of Pyeongtaek-si.

On September 7, 2012, the head of Pyeongtaek-si approved the above amendment, and publicly notified it as G publicly notified on September 7, 2012.

C. The Defendant Union submitted a land substitution plan under the said implementation plan to the head of Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter “instant land substitution plan”), and the head of Pyeongtaek-si approved the plan (hereinafter “instant authorization disposition”) around March 12, 2014.

Around March 28, 2014, the Defendant Union notified the Plaintiff of the designation of a land scheduled for replotting regarding real estate stated in the purport of the claim owned by the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant disposition of designating the land scheduled for substitution”). 【The ground for recognition” did not have any dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Claim against the defendant union;

A. 1) With respect to the primary claim part, the Plaintiff filed a claim for revocation on the premise that the instant land substitution plan prepared by the Defendant Union constituted a disposition subject to appeal litigation. As such, the Defendant Union did not directly change the Plaintiff’s legal status, which does not constitute a disposition subject to appeal litigation, and the lawsuit on this part is unlawful. 2) As such, the designation of a land substitution plan or a land substitution disposition, such as Articles 36 and 42 of the Urban Development Act, changes directly to the rights and obligations of the landowner, etc. accordingly, the appeal litigation is filed.