B. Whether the suspension of use and profit-making under Article 41(7) of the Urban Redevelopment Act is possible in a case where the approval of the management and disposal plan is not publicly announced (negative)

B. The notice under Article 41(7) of the Urban Redevelopment Act refers to the notice of authorization for the management and disposal plan under paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 41 of the Urban Redevelopment Act. Thus, there is no room to regard that a suspension of use or profit-making for the previous land, etc. has been made under paragraph (7) of the same Article, unless there is a legitimate

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

According to the articles of incorporation of the plaintiff association, it is like the theory that the association members are obliged to faithfully implement and observe the articles of association regulations, comply with the legitimate instruction and control of the union's resolution, and actively cooperate with the union's legitimate business affairs. However, it cannot be viewed that the defendant 1, the union members of the plaintiff association, made an agreement with the plaintiff association to bear the duty to remove their own building. In addition, as in the theory of the lawsuit, the above defendant submitted a written consent under Article 14 (2) of the Urban Redevelopment Act with the consent of the redevelopment project of this case and submitted the power of delegation to the president of the union, and even if the regulations of urban development such as the theory of lawsuit are recognized, it cannot be the grounds for recognizing the removal of the above

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the provisions of the Urban Redevelopment Act concerning removal of obstacles and the articles of association, misunderstanding of evidence preparation, misunderstanding of evidence determination, or misunderstanding of the legal principles concerning ex post facto compensation.

2. Ground of appeal No. 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, according to the provisions of Articles 40 and 41 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, the owner of the land and building shall apply for parcelling-out within 60 days from the date of the public announcement of the authorization of implementation under the same Act, and when this period has elapsed, the implementer shall determine a management and disposal plan and obtain the authorization of the Minister of Construction and Transportation. In light of the provisions of Articles 42, 43, 45 and 47 of the same Act, even if the articles of incorporation are included in the contents of the management and disposal plan prepared and submitted at the time of the approval of the establishment and implementation of the association, it cannot be deemed that the approval of the management and disposal plan under the provisions of Article 41 of the same Act was made (see Supreme Court Decision 8Da17822, May 23,

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles and incomplete hearing.

3. Ground of appeal No. 4

According to the provisions of Article 41(7) of the Urban Redevelopment Act, when a public announcement under the provisions of paragraph (5) is made, the owners of the previous lands, etc. shall not use or benefit from the previous lands, etc. until the date of the public announcement of the sale in lots under the provisions of Article 48(5). As such, the public announcement under the provisions of paragraph (5) above refers to the public announcement of the approval of the management and disposition plan under the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2). Therefore, in this case where there is no legitimate public announcement of the approval of the management and disposition plan, it

The author argues that the public notice under the above Paragraph (5) is wrong with the project implementation authorization under Article 16 of the same Act, and the defendants cannot use and benefit from the land and buildings of this case, and the plaintiff can accept and use them as a matter of course, and therefore is groundless.

4. Ground of appeal No. 5

Even if there are circumstances such as the theory of lawsuit, such as the failure of Defendant 1 to remove the building of this case to obstruct the implementation of the plaintiff's urban redevelopment project and the increase of damages to other members, it is not enough to justify the plaintiff's claim of this case on the sole basis of such circumstances.

5. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)