관리처분계획인가취소
1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit shall include costs resulting from the participation.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The intervenor obtained authorization from the defendant on January 26, 2007 to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project by designating the Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Japan as a project implementation rearrangement zone.
B. The Intervenor obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on September 21, 2007 from the Defendant; the authorization for the implementation of the project on March 14, 2013; and the authorization for the implementation of the project on February 27, 2014; and the authorization for the implementation of the project on August 31, 2015; and the authorization for the alteration of the management and disposition plan on September 2, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff A was the owner of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Land E and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) within the above improvement zone.
Plaintiff
A did not refund the lease deposit to the lessee of the instant real estate, and received a favorable judgment regarding the claim for reimbursement after the intervenor paid it.
As a result of the compulsory auction procedure for the real estate in this case with title, the third party paid the successful bid price, the plaintiff A lost ownership on April 14, 2015.
Plaintiff
B is the wife of Plaintiff A.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3, 4, 8 through 12, Eul 1 to 9, Eul 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Of the instant lawsuit, Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that the instant lawsuit shall be instituted within 90 days from the date on which a disposition, etc. is known, and within one year from the date on which the disposition, etc. is taken.
However, the fact that the instant disposition was taken on September 2, 2015 is as seen earlier, and it is evident in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on January 4, 2017, one year after the lawsuit was filed. As such, the part of the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed after the lapse of the filing period of the revocation lawsuit.
3. Whether the claim for nullification of the lawsuit in this case is legitimate
(a) The authorization of the administrative agency under Article 48 (1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents shall be of Housing Redevelopment Cooperatives;