도로지정처분 무효확인의 소 등
1. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.
3...
1. Details of the disposition;
A. Young-gu Housing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Yeo-si Housing”) obtained a building permit for the development of multi-family housing in the Jeju-si B, and in the process of filing an application for the relevant building permit, the Plaintiff, an organization composed of the residents of Jeju-ri in the Jeju-si, requested the Plaintiff to consent to the designation of the road as to the 2,047 square meters and D roads (hereinafter “each land of this case”).
B. On March 4, 2016, the Defendant publicly announced the designation of a road on the portion of 4 meters wide (394 square meters in the case of the pertinent land, and 127 square meters in the case of D land) among each of the instant land.
C. On July 15, 2016, E, which had been the representative of the Plaintiff at the time, signed and sealed the Plaintiff’s official seal on the “Road Designation Consent Form” (No. 3; hereinafter “instant Consent Form”) stating that he/she consented to the designation of each of the instant lands on July 15, 2016, and submitted it to the Defendant along with a certificate of the personal seal impression.
On July 18, 2016, the Defendant publicly announced the designation of each of the instant land pursuant to Articles 2(1)11 and 45(1) of the Building Act.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. During the process of implementing a project for the development of multi-family housing based on apartment houses at the time, E, who was the representative of the Plaintiff, arbitrarily prepared and submitted a written consent for the designation of the Plaintiff’s name by taking advantage of the representative status without undergoing the procedures for gathering residents’ opinions.
Therefore, each of the dispositions in this case is null and void without the consent of the plaintiff, who is the owner of the land subject to road designation and interested parties.
On the other hand, each of the instant lands falls under the Plaintiff’s collective ownership, and thus the resolution of the general meeting should be followed in order for the Plaintiff to consent to the designation of the road.
Nevertheless, the defendant's objection.