1. The judgment of the court below

A. According to the judgment below and the evidence duly employed by the court below, ① The Promotion Committee for the Establishment of the Koduk Housing Reconstruction Project Association (hereinafter “the Promotion Committee of this case”) shall provide one house to the owner of the land, etc. within the project area, including the contents of the articles of association stating that “if the new appurtenant or welfare facilities are not supplied and the value of the existing appurtenant or welfare facilities is above the value calculated by multiplying the minimum estimated unit size of the housing unit to be sold, the owner of the appurtenant or welfare facilities may supply one house,” and the defendant shall be entitled to give consent to the establishment of the association, including the draft articles of association from January 2010 to 808 (46 owners of the land, etc. within the project area) among the whole owners of the land, etc. within the project area, and the promotion committee of this case shall thereafter obtain consent to the establishment of the association, including the amendment of the articles of association, and the amendment of the articles of association, including the above 20th anniversary of the establishment of the 20th general meeting (hereinafter referred to as 40th general meeting).

B. For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s disposition of this case committed by the Defendant was unlawful on the grounds that: (a) the phrase “association articles” included in the written consent of the owners of land, etc. refers to the draft articles of association prepared by the promotion committee; (b) it is reasonable to interpret the draft to the effect that the consent to the draft articles of association would be approved and complied with if it becomes final and conclusive as the association articles of association at the next inaugural general meeting without maintaining its identity; and (c) it is unreasonable to interpret to the purport that the consent to the draft articles of association finalized as the association articles of association at the next inaugural general meeting, regardless of the contents of the draft articles of association, and (b) the Defendant’s assistant intervenor did not obtain the

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

A. Article 16(2) and (5) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 10268, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter “former Act”) provides that the consent of owners, such as land, shall be obtained as the requirements for authorization to establish a housing reconstruction project association, and necessary matters concerning the objects of consent shall be delegated to the Presidential Decree. According to delegation, Article 26(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22151, May 4, 2010; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Act”) provides that the consent of owners, such as the above land shall be obtained by the consent form stipulated by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and one of the matters to be included in the consent form shall be attached to the application form for authorization to establish a housing improvement project association (Article 16(1)5).

Meanwhile, Article 28 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and Article 17 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents may withdraw consent or express opposing opinions before applying for approval under the former part of Article 17 (1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. However, Article 16 (2) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents shall not be withdrawn even before the application for authorization for the establishment of an association is filed if the matters under the subparagraphs of Article 26 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree are not changed after consent to the authorization for the establishment of an association under Article 16 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. Article 17 (5) of the same Act provides that "the owner of land, etc. who intends to withdraw consent or express opposing opinions shall send a written withdrawal certificate to the other party

B. Further to the structure, form, and content of the provision on the consent of the establishment of a housing reconstruction project and the withdrawal of consent, the legislative purpose can be deemed to prevent the administrative agency from sustaining unnecessary administrative power to verify whether the consent was given by examining only the withdrawal of consent submitted prior to the application for the establishment of the association. ② Where the resolution of the inaugural general meeting is contrary to its intent, landowners, etc. may express their intent to withdraw the above individual consent and prevent the effectiveness of consent from occurring. ③ Nevertheless, if the amendment of the articles of association was made before the inaugural general meeting without the above withdrawal of consent, the landowners, etc. who submitted the original consent was anticipated to submit it to the Defendant at the inaugural general meeting, and thus, it can be deemed that they expressed their intent to recognize the validity of the draft articles of association after the amendment (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du16394, Jan. 10, 2013). Furthermore, the purport of the amendment of the articles of association and the contents of the association’s consent to the establishment of the association should be deemed legitimate rather than the consent of the association’s establishment.

Therefore, in this case where there is no data on whether the owner of land, etc. withdraws consent for the establishment of the association, the consent of the owner of the land, etc. is valid, and there is no error in the disposition of this case by the defendant who approved the establishment of the association.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the defect of administrative disposition or the consent and withdrawal of consent to the establishment of an association, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: omitted

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)