[추진위원회해산신고수리처분취소][공2010상,343]
The method of calculating "owner of land, etc." where the same co-owners jointly own the land, land, or building in different lots of land in a housing redevelopment project, or where the same co-owners jointly own the land, land, or building in different lots of land.
In light of the contents and structure of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Article 2 subparagraph 9 (a) and Article 17 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008), Article 28 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21171 of Dec. 17, 2008), and Article 28 (1) 1 of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21171 of Dec. 17, 2008), one of the co-owners shall be calculated as the owner of land, etc. for each real estate, and if the same co-owner jointly owns a different parcel of land, land, or building, only one of the co-owners
Article 2 subparagraph 9 (a) and Article 17 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008); Article 28 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21171, Dec. 17, 2008)
Plaintiff (Law Firm Es., Attorneys Lee Jong-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Head of the Gu of the Daegu Metropolitan City (Attorney Gi-ok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Intervenor 1 and 128 others
Daegu High Court Decision 2008Nu1567 decided August 21, 2009
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from supplementary participation.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
According to Article 2 subparagraph 9 (a) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008), the term "owner of land, etc." means the owner or superficies of the land or structure located within the rearrangement zone, and according to Article 17 of the same Act and Article 28 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree thereof (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21171 of Dec. 17, 2008), the consent of the owner of the land, etc. in the housing redevelopment project shall be calculated as the owner of the land, etc., if one piece of land or one building belongs to the co-ownership of several persons, one representative of the owner of the land and one person representing persons with superficies shall be calculated as the owner of the land, if one person owns a lot of land or a large number of buildings, regardless of the number of parcels of land or buildings.
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles, if co-owners of each real estate are the same, only one of them shall be calculated as the owner of land, etc., and the number of legitimate owners at the time of the disposition of this case is 443. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles
2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2
The assertion that consent without consent of the representative of the owner of a plot of land, etc. is null and void is asserted for the first time in the final appeal (see, e.g., records 1033), and cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal, and the owner of a plot of land, etc. who consented to the dissolution of the Housing Redevelopment Project Promotion Committee may consent to the dissolution thereof in his own name or through the appointed representative. Therefore, the decision of the court below to the effect that the owner of a plot of land, etc. directly consented to the dissolution
3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the declaration of consent to dissolution of the above five persons is valid since there is a lack of evidence to prove that the defendant public official in charge of the defendant illegally rejected the application for withdrawal of consent to dissolution submitted by five persons including
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the withdrawal of written consent for dissolution.
4. Conclusion
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal, including those resulting from participation, are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)