시공사신고수리처분등무효
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the lower court acknowledged that the instant disposition in receipt of the report of the Intervenor’s selection was defective in violation of Article 7(2) of the Addenda of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 6852, Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter “former Act”), since the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was selected as the executor of the instant project with the consent of 946 owners of land, etc. located within the implementation zone of the instant project, but failed to obtain the consent of 1/2 or more of the owners of land, etc. under Article 7(2) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (
However, as stated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. and Hyundai Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Industrial Development”) (hereinafter “Modern Industrial Development”) were selected as a contractor in the D Apartment Housing Reconstruction Project, which was promoted in an area adjacent to the instant project implementation zone; and (b) initially, the Defendant deemed that “an agreement of at least 1/2 of the owners of land, etc.” under Article 7(2) of the Addenda to the former Urban Improvement Act refers to “an agreement of at least 1/2 of all owners of land, etc.” and accordingly, rejected the report of the Intervenor and Hyundai Construction and Hyundai Industrial Development (hereinafter “ Intervenor, etc.”) on September 1, 2004; and (b) accordingly, the Intervenor filed an administrative lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the said disposition; and (c) the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal against the Defendant for revocation of the said disposition.”