주택재개발정비사업 조합설립인가취소처분 취소 등
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and the amendment in this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for correction and addition as set forth in paragraph (2) as follows, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
From the 3rd side of the first instance judgment, the 3rd part of the “AP. BO” was corrected to “AP, BO,” and the 5th 12th BX BY was corrected to “BX and BY.” 2. The additional judgment of this court [the Plaintiff’s assertion] by this court / 9 of the owners of land, etc., such as AM, AP, BB, BM, CG, CH, CI, CJ, CJ, CK, etc., were not submitted, and it is difficult to view that a majority of the owners of land, etc. consent to the dissolution of the partnership.
[Judgment] The above assertion made by the plaintiff in this court is not different from the contents of the plaintiff's assertion in the first instance court. The first instance court's decision rejecting the plaintiff's assertion is justified in light of both the evidence submitted in the first instance court and the evidence additionally submitted in this court (AA1, B10-16, witness AM, Q, CL, and CI).
(1) Four persons, including AM, A Q, CL, and CI, stated in this Court that “The actual written consent to the dissolution of a cooperative was prepared. Nevertheless, the written confirmation that they did not submit the written consent to the dissolution of the cooperative upon the Plaintiff’s request, but this is different from the fact,” and each of the above statements appears to have a high credibility.
(Each of the above witnesses' testimonys) Five persons, including BB, BM, CH, CJ, and CK, seem to have prepared a written consent for the dissolution of the partnership.
(A-34, 8-45, 10-2, 10-4, 10-5, and the purport of the entire testimony and arguments as above). Even if the above five persons did not prepare a written consent for the dissolution of the partnership, 508 (508 persons [513 (persons consenting to the dissolution of the partnership)] exceeding 1015 persons, including the land, etc., have consented to the dissolution of the partnership, so it can be deemed that they meet the requirements of Article 16-2 (1) 2 of the Urban Improvement Act.
3. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiff's claim based on this conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's claim is just.