주택재개발정비사업조합설립인가 무효확인
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising from the Plaintiff’s participation.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The J Housing Redevelopment Promotion Committee (hereinafter “instant Promotion Committee”) held an inaugural general meeting on March 28, 2015.
B. On April 8, 2015, the instant promotion committee filed an application with the Defendant for authorization to establish an association. On July 6, 2015, the Defendant rejected the said application on the grounds that the agreement rate is below 75% of the owners of lands, etc. (3/4) stipulated in the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Amended by Act No. 13378, Jun. 22, 2015; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).
C. On August 17, 2015, the instant promotion committee supplemented the written consent, etc., and 1,783 of the owners of land, etc. agreed to establish an association, and the consent rate of 75.39% was 75.39%, and applied for authorization to establish an association to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant application”).
On September 18, 2015, the Defendant approved the establishment of the Intervenor joining the Defendant by deeming that 1,775 of the owners of land, etc. 2,365 agreed to establish an association and the consent ratio was 75.05% (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 11 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The specific arguments of the parties concerned by the parties are to re-examine the individual part of paragraph 5 below.
The plaintiffs' assertion of this case is premised on the number of owners of land, etc. 2,365, number of consenters 1,775, and rate of 75.05%. However, as seen earlier, there are many defects that the defendant calculated such rate of consent, and considering these defects, it is obvious that the consent rate is less than 75%.
Nevertheless, the defendant deemed that the consent ratio necessary for the establishment of the association has been satisfied, and the disposition of this case is null and void because the defect is serious and clear.
B. The defendant's assertion 1 is defective in calculating the respective ratio of consent claimed by the plaintiff.