2. The Intervenor joining the Defendant’s part resulting from the participation in the appeal cost, and the remainder, respectively, are borne by the Defendant.

On August 21, 2003, it is confirmed that the Defendant’s acceptance of the report of construction works against the Intervenor joining the Defendant is null and void.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reasons for use in this case are as follows, and the reasons for use by this Court are as follows, except for the addition of the decision of the allegations made by the intervenor in the trial as follows: The reasons for use by this Court shall be as follows: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Then, the third 8th "in important roles" is added to "in the event that an intervenor is deemed a contractor pursuant to the Urban Improvement Act, a partner is deprived of the opportunity to choose a contractor through competitive bidding pursuant to the Urban Improvement Act."

The term "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes" that will be the fourth eightth day of this judgment is changed to the term "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

The “635 persons” shall be added to the “635 persons” under the fifth below, and then the “60%” shall be added.

Following the 4th below the 5th below, “it cannot be seen as a valid consent,” the additional consent of the 252 owners is acknowledged as follows: “The consent of the 252 owners to the new distribution apartment reconstruction promotion committee (ju) selected as a contractor at the inaugural general meeting of the new distribution 2 district reconstruction promotion committee, held in the presidential meeting of the 2nd district reconstruction promotion committee located in Black Dong-dong, Dongjak-gu on December 22, 2001 and the consent to the project participation of the Si construction.” Thus, the object of the consent is not about the selection of the intervenor as a contractor, but about the conditions of the project participation on the premise that the intervenor was already selected as a contractor. The additional consent cannot be seen as a valid consent under Article 7(2) of the Addenda to the former Urban Improvement Act.”

2. Additional determination

A. The intervenor's assertion

Article 7 (2) of the Addenda to the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas is interpreted simply formally only as “the consent of at least 1/2 of the owners of land, etc.” and it is in violation of the Constitution to deprive a contractor legally selected with the consent of at least 1/2 of the owners of the land, etc., which is a requirement added pursuant to Article 7 (2) of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, on the ground that the contractor did not obtain consent of at least 1/2 of

B. Determination

In the event that a law is amended, if the public interest purpose to achieve a new law is not justified because the trust of the parties to the existence of the law is reasonable, reasonable, and the infringement of the party's damages or interests caused by the amendment of the law is extremely serious, the legislators shall take appropriate measures to protect the party's trust, such as the establishment of transitional provisions, and it is not permissible to enforce or apply the new law without such appropriate measures. This is because it is contrary to the principle of trust protection derived from the principle of the rule of law, which is the basic principle of the Constitution. On the other hand, to determine whether the principle of trust protection is violated, it shall be compared and balanced by taking into account the public interest purpose to be realized through the new law on the one hand, on the other, other than the protected value, degree of infringement, degree of damage, degree of damage to trust, etc. of the infringed interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du1476, Oct. 12

The Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, which was enacted by Act No. 6852 on December 30, 202 and was implemented under the previous Urban Redevelopment Act, provides for matters necessary for the restoration of urban functions, including housing redevelopment projects and housing reconstruction projects under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, Housing Construction Promotion Act, etc. (Article 1). The Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and Housing, Housing Construction Promotion Act, etc., which provide for housing reconstruction projects prior to the enforcement of the above Act, do not provide for the method of selecting urban works. However, as long as the number of winnings of a reconstruction project depends on the selection of a city, it is often related to the procedure of selecting urban works and the ability to credit rating. Accordingly, in enacting the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, owners such as a cooperative or land, etc. shall select the constructor by competitive bidding methods as determined by the articles of association of the association and the head of the Gun within 20/100 of the land owner’s agreement.

As can be seen, the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents introduced a competitive bidding method on the procedures for the selection of new construction works and concluded a construction contract in advance, it is not a retroactive legislation, since the former Act on the Selection of Construction Works is not repealed or modified by the enactment of this Act. Even if the status of construction works is de facto deprived due to the enactment of the Act, the above provisions of the Act do not violate the Constitution in light of the purpose of achieving a new law.

Furthermore, on December 22, 2001, the new distribution apartment reconstruction and rearrangement project association of the second apartment on December 22, 2001 did not obtain a rebuilding resolution, and the intervenor was selected as the contractor without obtaining authorization for the establishment of the association. The intervenor was merely selected as the contractor from one of the non-corporate associations that can be re-established as non-corporate associations, and thus could not claim the status of non-members or other associations among the sectional owners and voting right holders in the housing complex.

In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to view that the need to protect trust in the continuance of the status of an intervenor is larger than the public interest to be achieved through Article 11 of the former Act and Article 7(2) of the Addenda to the former Act. Therefore, the Intervenor’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

All the appeals by the defendant and the intervenor are dismissed.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Kim Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)