1. Where a disposition to establish an association is revoked by a final judgment, whether the existing promotion committee can continue to implement the rearrangement project

In light of the contents, form, and purport of Articles 13(1), 14, 15(4) and (5), 16, 18, 19(1), and 85 subparag. 4, and 27 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “former Act”), a promotion committee for housing redevelopment rearrangement project is a non-corporate group established with the purpose of establishing an association and with the approval of establishment under Article 16 of the former Act, and the rights and duties related to the affairs of the promotion committee are all comprehensively established after obtaining the approval of establishment, and Articles 16(1), 14, 15(4) and (5), 16, 19(1), and 85 subparag. 4, Article 77(1), and 81, etc. of the Civil Act. However, if an association which has obtained the approval of establishment is established as a corporation, the promotion committee will be terminated by 2019.

(1) Where a disposition to establish an association is revoked by a court ruling, the disposition to establish the association becomes retroactively null and void, and the association remains the subject of rights and obligations within the scope of the purpose of liquidation until the liquidation work is completed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da95885, Mar. 29, 2012; 201Du518, Nov. 9, 2012). In such a case, the promotion committee cannot be deemed to have achieved its existence purpose.

(2) As long as an association is established, if the committee’s promotion committee’s objective has been achieved and its status cannot be recovered even if the disposition to establish the association is revoked, the association still remains within the scope of liquidation purpose, and it cannot promote the rearrangement project. Thus, even if there is no entity to continue the rearrangement project within the rearrangement zone in question, and even if the defect of the disposition to establish the association, which was written in the court’s decision, is minor, it is inevitable to follow the social and economic waste that requires a new procedure from the first time, such as the composition of the committee of promoters and the request for consent.

(3) Even if the committee’s disposition to establish an association is revoked, it is deemed that the land owner, etc. who has an objection to the continuous implementation of the rearrangement project may withdraw consent as prescribed by the law before the committee applies for a new authorization to establish an association. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that it seriously impedes the protection of the rights and interests of the land owners

(4) Article 17-2(1) and (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, which was amended by Act No. 13508, Sept. 1, 2015 and enforced March 2, 2016, provides that “the Promotion Committee” may re-use a written consent with no dispute over the validity of the written consent under a certain condition when the invalidation or revocation of the authorization for establishment becomes final and conclusive by the court’s decision. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the Promotion Committee may continue to implement the improvement project, such as filing an application for authorization for establishment, to the extent that does not hinder the protection of the rights and interests of landowners, such as land.

2. The lower court determined that the instant disposition was unlawful on the ground that the promotion committee can continue to carry out its establishment duties, such as reporting the change of the promotion committee members, on the premise that the promotion committee continues to exist, after recognizing the facts as indicated in its reasoning.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles, although some of the reasons of the judgment below are not appropriate, it is just in the conclusion that the promotion committee can continue to establish the association again if the disposition of approving the establishment is revoked, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of revocation judgment of approving the establishment and dissolution of the promotion committee which is non-corporate association,

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Intervenors joining the Defendant: Omitted

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)