2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the costs incurred by the intervention shall be borne by the Defendant’s Intervenor, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

A. On December 22, 2001, the Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was selected as the contractor with the consent of 1,092 from 1,572 owners of the entire land, etc. at the 2nd apartment house reconstruction and rearrangement project general meeting, and the consent of 635 persons from 252 owners of the land, etc. located in the implementation zone of the said reconstruction improvement project (hereinafter “instant project”) from June 203 to 8, 200, to be additionally selected as the contractor.

B. The intervenor reported to the defendant in July 2003 that he was selected as the contractor of the project in this case, and the defendant accepted it on August 21, 2003 pursuant to Article 7 (2) of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Act No. 6852, Dec. 30, 2002) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, 6, Eul evidence 3-1, 2

2. Determination on this safety defense

The intervenor asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since the plaintiff does not have direct and specific interests with respect to the disposition of this case.

The legal interest referred to in Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act refers to the direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the relevant administrative disposition, and it does not include any indirect or factual or economic interest in relation to the relevant administrative disposition. However, even if a third party who is not the direct counter party of the administrative disposition is infringed on the legal interest protected by the law due to the relevant administrative disposition, it is entitled to file a revocation lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du12289, Jan. 25, 2007, etc.).

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) With respect to the instant project, only 635 persons among the 1,572 owners of the entire land, etc. at the general meeting of the owners of the land, etc. held on December 22, 2001 agreed to select the intervenor as the contractor, and the additional written consent of 252 owners, such as the land, etc. that the intervenor is selected as the contractor, shall be gathered between June 2003 and August. Thus, the instant disposition was unlawful as it accepted the report of the selection of the contractor who did not obtain the consent of more than 1/2 of the owners of the land, etc. before August 9, 2002.

(2) On December 22, 2001, the number of participants is omitted or the written resolution number is omitted. Thus, the quorum and the quorum are manipulated.

(3) Of the written additional consent in 2003, the 38 households agreed to the Intervenor after the consent was given to the 2001 201 2001 , the 30 households, co-owners, submitted the additional consent without the representative’s appointment. 30 households, which were co-owners, were not verified whether the 33 households are dedicated to the certificate of the personal seal impression, and 4 households, which were not for the 199 households, submitted the certificate of the personal seal impression for other purposes rather than for the 19 households, cannot be deemed as due to their genuine intent.

(b) Related statutes;

Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas

The Addenda < Act No. 6852, Dec. 30, 2002>

Article 7 (Transitional Measures for Project Implementation)

(1) Matters being implemented after obtaining approval for a project plan or authorization for project implementation under the previous Acts shall be governed by the previous provisions.

(2) Where an association that has obtained authorization for establishment of an association and selects a contractor with the consent of at least 1/2 of the owners of land, etc. and has already concluded an execution contract or a housing reconstruction project with the consent of at least 1/2 of the owners of land, etc. before August 9, 2002, and reports the relevant contractor to the head of a Si/Gun within 2 months after the enforcement date of this Act according to the methods and procedures prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation,

C. Determination

(1) Whether consent has been obtained from at least 1/2 of the owners of the land, etc. before August 9, 2002

(A) A housing reconstruction project cooperative, which was enacted and promulgated on December 30, 202 (amended from July 1, 2003), shall select a constructor or registered business operator as a contractor through a competitive bidding following the resolution of the general meeting after obtaining an approval for project implementation under Articles 11, 24, and 25 of the Act. exceptionally, a cooperative which has obtained approval for the establishment of a partnership, shall select a contractor with the consent of at least 1/2 of the owners of the land, etc. and has already entered into an construction contract with the consent of at least 1/2 of the owners of the land, etc. or a housing reconstruction project that selects a contractor with the consent of at least 1/2 of the owners of the land, etc. before the enforcement date of the Urban Improvement Act, and reports to the head of the Si/Gun within 2 months after the enforcement date of the said Act according to a specific method and procedure under Article 7 (2) of the Addenda of the said Act (hereinafter “Transition Regulations”).

(B) The purpose of the transitional provision is to recognize the status of the existing contractor by exceptionally recognizing the exception of competitive bidding only in cases where the selection of the previous contractor is consistent with the intention of the majority of the landowners, such as land, in order to prevent various kinds of corruption and side effects in relation to the selection of the contractor of a reconstruction project and to revert profits related to reconstruction to the owners, such as land. Therefore, if it is intended to recognize the status of the contractor in accordance with the transitional provision, it is necessary to obtain the consent of 1/2 or more of the owners of the land, etc., and it does not constitute a contractor selected with the consent of the majority of the attendance and attendance of the owners of the land, etc.

(C) According to the above facts, it is evident that the intervenor did not obtain the consent of 1,572 owners of the entire land, etc. at the inaugural general meeting of December 22, 2001 only with the consent of 1,572 owners, and 252 owners of the land, etc. from June to August 2003, including the land from June 9, 2002, but it was received after August 9, 2002, and it cannot be viewed as valid consent (in view of the valid consent, it goes against the legislative purport of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, which provides for the principle of selecting a new construction through competitive bidding, by collecting additional consent after the base date and avoiding the competitive bidding).

(D) Therefore, even though the instant disposition did not meet the requirements of Article 7(2) of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, there is an error of law accepting the report

(2) a significant and apparent defect;

In order for an administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, it is insufficient to say that there is an illegality in the disposition. The defect is a serious violation of the important part of the law and objectively obvious. In determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law should be examined from a teleological perspective as well as reasonable consideration on the specificity of the specific case itself (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du11979, Jan. 10, 2008). In this case, the transitional provision clearly provides that "the consent of more than 1/2 of the owners of the land, etc. is obtained prior to August 9, 2002," but the defendant clearly violated the transitional provision by accepting the report of construction project which fails to meet such requirements, and the purpose of the transitional provision as seen earlier is to recognize the existing contractor only in exceptional cases by adopting the method of selecting the contractor through competitive bidding to promote the interest of the owners of the land, etc., and thus, the defect of the disposition in this case is likely to affect the interest of the landowner.

(3) Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit, and without further review of the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant disposition is null and void as a matter of course.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified, and pursuant to Articles 98 and 103 of the Civil Procedure Act, the intervenor shall bear the costs incurred by the intervention, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant, respectively.

Judges Jindo (Presiding Judge)