조합설립인가무효확인등
1. Each appeal by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) against the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Defendant A, and Plaintiff B, respectively.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the partial dismissal as set forth below 2. Thus, this case is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts to be dried;
(a) Parts 4, 18 to 20 of the 4th parallels shall be dried as follows:
“B. According to Article 8(3) of the Articles of the Defendant Union’s articles of incorporation, the co-owners submitted “the representative selection consent and individual rebuilding consent” but the Plaintiff did not submit it to the present day from the date of the instant authorization disposition on June 12, 2003, and thus, the Plaintiff A was not a member of the Defendant Union from June 12, 2003. However, the Defendant Union filed a claim for sale against the Plaintiff (Seoul East District Court Decision 2013Gahap4751, Seoul East District Court Decision 2015Gadan1251, supra) and the claim for damages (the same court’s claim for ownership transfer, etc.) against the Plaintiff A, claiming that the Plaintiff was not a member of the Defendant Union since June 12, 2003. Thus, the Plaintiff may again have the status of the member of the Defendant Union since June 12, 2003.
(b) Parts 7, 5 to 18 shall be dried as follows:
“(2) A lawsuit for confirmation of the absence of a partner’s status against the Defendant Union by Plaintiff A is permitted to eliminate risks or apprehensions with respect to the present rights or legal status. Even in the past legal relations, the current rights or legal status is affected, and it is recognized that obtaining a judgment on confirmation of the legal relations is an effective and appropriate means to eliminate risks or apprehensions with respect to the present rights or legal status (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da36407, Oct. 14, 2010).