OOOOOOO 00 - 0

2. ○○;

OOOOOOO 00 - 0

3. Ma○○.

OO-si OO 000 00 - 0

4. Ma○○.

OOOOOOOO

5. ○○.

OOOOOOO 00 - 0

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na11488 delivered on August 2, 200

OO-gu OO ○○ 00 - 0

Representative ○○○○

Law Firm Barun, Attorney Kim Hyun-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

2. The case shall be transferred to the Suwon District Court.

The plaintiffs are entitled to the "Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents" (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents") and the defendant, who is a non-project cooperative for housing redevelopment (hereinafter referred to as the "development cooperative") under the "Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents" (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents"), ○○○○○○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○M as a project implementation district.

The general meeting held the defendant's articles of incorporation, the appointment of executives of partnership, and the project execution plan, and around that time, the redevelopment association was authorized on May 19, 2009 to establish the redevelopment association with the contents of consent to the redevelopment project from the owner of the land in the project implementation district, etc., and then the consent was received from the ○○ market. The above consent letter, which was drafted for the defendant's establishment, states the expenses required for the removal and construction of the building and the cost-sharing of the building in abstract and flexible manner, and it is impossible for the owners of the land including the plaintiffs, etc. to estimate the cost-sharing amount. Thus, it is argued that the establishment of the defendant is invalid.

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation, inasmuch as it is not the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate any anxiety and danger existing in the plaintiffs' rights or legal status, seeking invalidation of the establishment itself without dispute over the validity of administrative disposition, such as the designation of the rearrangement zone in the ○○ market.

B. Determination

(1) An redevelopment association under the Urban Improvement Act is established as a juristic person by completing the requirements and procedures prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as obtaining consent to establish an association from the owners of land and buildings within a rearrangement zone (hereinafter referred to as “establishment resolution”). Moreover, under the supervision of the competent administrative agency, an redevelopment association established following such procedures has the status of an administrative body performing certain administrative actions within the rearrangement zone under the conditions as prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes within the scope of implementation of a housing redevelopment project under the Urban Improvement Act. Therefore, an administrative agency’s disposition to establish an association under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Urban Improvement Act, does not merely have the nature of “the act of establishing an association” of a private person, but also has the authority to implement a housing redevelopment project under the Urban Improvement Act, and if it satisfies the legal requirements, it is a kind of disposition that grants the status of an administrative body (which is a public corporation) with the authority to implement a housing redevelopment project under the Urban Improvement Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s decision to establish an association cannot be deemed unlawful or invalid for the reason that it is the most unlawful establishment resolution.

(2) In this case, the health belt, the defendant's implementation of the housing redevelopment project on February 25, 2009.

The general meeting held by the defendant's articles of association, the appointment of executives of the partnership, and the business action plan of the redevelopment association, etc. around that time after receiving consent from the owners of the land in the above project implementation district, etc., and obtained authorization from the redevelopment market on May 19, 2009 and completed the establishment registration on May 22, 2009, and there is no dispute between the parties. As alleged by the plaintiffs, if there is a defect in the consent of the owners of land in the project implementation district, etc., it is necessary to seek revocation or invalidity of the establishment authorization by direct appeal for the reason of the defect. However, the plaintiffs are separately removed only the defendant's establishment act, which is the requirement of the approval of establishment, which is the requirement of the establishment, and seek nullification of the establishment. However, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs' substance to dispute by the lawsuit of this case is an unlawful action without interest in confirmation, and it is reasonable to seek revocation or invalidity of the establishment authorization of the association as seen above, and the other party's legal relation as the establishment of the association.

(4) Therefore, the lawsuit of this case should have been brought to the Suwon District Court, which is the competent court of the first instance, but it was tried to support the Suwon District Court, and there was an error of violation of the exclusive jurisdiction prior to the existence of interest in confirmation. In light of the fact that the lawsuit of this case can be deliberated after the transfer with the permission of the Suwon District Court after the transfer as an appeal litigation on the disposition of approving the establishment of a partnership, it is difficult to view that it is an obvious case to be dismissed as it is illegal even if it is transferred, and therefore, it is necessary to transfer the case to the competent court (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da25261, Jul. 24, 2008; 2008Da60568, Sept. 24, 2009).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance that violated the exclusive jurisdiction shall be revoked, and the case shall be transferred to the Suwon District Court which is the legal ground of jurisdiction, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Young-hee

Judges Cho Jae-chul