주택재개발정비사업조합설립인가취소
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall include the costs resulting from the participation in the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for the plaintiffs’ assertion at the trial under Paragraph 2 below, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment at the court of first instance. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' assertion of propriety
A. The gist of the Plaintiff A(1)’s assertion was that the instant promotion committee comprehensively succeeded to the Intervenor’s association due to the first disposition of approving the establishment of the association on October 4, 2010, and the first disposition of approving the establishment of the association was revoked by judgment.
Even if the promotion committee is already extinguished, it cannot be viewed that it is returned again.
Therefore, the Defendant’s second disposition of approving the establishment of the secondary association on December 1, 2011 is illegal since it is subject to the extinguished promotion committee.
(2) The reason why the first disposition to establish the association of the Defendant on October 4, 2010 was revoked by the judgment, is because the application itself for the authorization to establish the association of the instant promotion committee on June 22, 2010 did not have any particular procedural defect substantially or procedurally. However, the Defendant’s decision to suspend the validity of the approval to establish the promotion committee on August 13, 2010 issued after the application by the court (Seoul Administrative Court 2010 A826) was readily against the decision to grant authorization to establish the association.
However, due to revocation of the first disposition of approving the establishment of the association, it cannot be deemed that the effectiveness of the committee's application for approving the establishment of the association on June 22, 2010, which was made by the committee, has expired. As long as the application itself is valid, it cannot be deemed that any illegality exists in the second disposition
Therefore, Plaintiff A’s assertion is without merit.
B. The gist of the Plaintiff D and E(1)’s assertion as to the existence of the power of representation by the chairman of the promotion committee was not elected as the chairman of the promotion committee through the resolution of the residents’ general meeting, and the promotion committee of this case is punished by a fine of one million won due to the suspicion of embezzlement of business promotion expenses around June 2007.