조합설립인가처분무효확인
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
1. The reasoning of the lower court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. Whether the Plaintiffs’ assertion constitutes “a building, the removal of which is inevitable due to aging” under Article 2 subparag. 3 (c) of the former Act should not be based only on the number of years elapsed of the building, and whether it is inevitable to remove the building due to structural defects, etc. as the building is deteriorated. Such interpretation is clear in itself in light of the content, form, intent, etc. of the relevant regulations.
However, while the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do has been aware of the above legal principles by losing the same issue at the time of the determination of each of the instant plans, the determination of each of the instant plans is null and void because it has determined whether the building was old and inferior structures based only on the number of elapsed years of the building without any separate examination as to whether the building was old and inferior structures in determining each of the instant plans.
Therefore, the instant disposition based on each of the instant planning decisions null and void is also null and void.
B. Determination 1) Article 2 subparag. 3 (c) of the former Act and Article 2(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Buildings, “a building prescribed by Presidential Decree, the removal of which is inevitable due to structural defects, etc. caused by deterioration of the building” means a building for which 20 years, etc. have passed after its completion and which requires removal due to deterioration and structural defects, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du16592, Jun. 18, 2012).