1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s establishment authorization disposition against the Intervenor joining the Defendant on May 16, 2003 is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) is a member of the Intervenor joining the Defendant, a reconstruction and consolidation project association established for the purpose of the reconstruction project of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C.

B. Establishment of the Intervenor joining the Defendant and modification thereto 1) On May 16, 2003, the Intervenor joining the Defendant was wholly amended by the Defendant from May 16, 2003 to the Housing Construction Promotion Act (Act No. 6916, May 29, 2003; hereinafter “former Housing Construction Promotion Act”).

() Under Article 44(1), the establishment of a reconstruction project is authorized with the purpose of removing existing buildings on the land outside Seodaemun-gu Seoul and outside 76, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, and constructing four units of apartment buildings on the ground of 9,979m2,00 square meters on the ground of 9,979m2 (hereinafter “instant disposition approving the establishment of an association”).

(2) On June 11, 2009, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor was designated and publicly notified as a housing reconstruction rearrangement zone for the area subject to the disposition of approving the establishment of the instant association on June 11, 2009 (the name, size, volume ratio, building-to-land ratio, etc. of the rearrangement zone was modified). After November 4, 2009, the Intervenor joining the Defendant’s name from the Defendant association was “F reconstruction Housing Association” at the time of the disposition of approving the establishment of the instant association, but thereafter, the name of the Intervenor joining the Defendant was changed to “BHousing Improvement Project Association” upon the disposition of approving

It was authorized to change the size of the zone scheduled for the implementation of the project and the number of union members (hereinafter “prior authorization for change of the establishment of the project in this case”).

3) After the Defendant’s amendment of the articles of incorporation on January 15, 2010, following the election of union officers and representatives, the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor obtained authorization to change the name of union members on August 26, 201, and the authorization to change the establishment of association following the new joining of union members on August 26, 201, respectively. 4) The Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor against G and 11 owners of land or buildings in the project zone.