[2] The case holding that in a case where a contractor selected before the enforcement of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents reported the selection of a contractor and received a non-acceptance disposition as a result of filing an administrative appeal, it does not need to follow

Article 7 (2) of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 6582, Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter "the Addenda to the Act") provides that "a cooperative authorized to establish an association shall select a contractor with the consent of at least 1/2 of the owners of the land, etc. and a housing reconstruction project selected with the consent of at least 1/2 of the owners of the land, etc. before August 9, 2002 and reported to the head of a Si/Gun within 2 months after the enforcement date of this Act pursuant to the methods and procedures prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, the constructor shall be deemed a contractor selected pursuant to Article 11 of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 6582, Jul. 1, 2003; hereinafter "the Addenda to the Act") provides that a person who intends to obtain consent from the owner of the land, etc. shall be reported within two months.

Therefore, even if a specific constructor was selected as a contractor through a resolution of the general meeting pursuant to the previous applicable laws and regulations before the enforcement of the Urban Improvement Act, if the previous general meeting fails to meet the exceptional recognition requirements under Article 7 (2) of the Addenda of the Act after the enforcement of the Urban Improvement Act, the decision to select the contractor becomes invalid, and therefore, the previous general meeting shall go through the procedure of selecting the contractor again pursuant to the provisions of the Urban Improvement Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8426, Jan. 10, 2008). However, if the constructor selected before the enforcement of the Urban Improvement Act reports to the head of the Si/Gun pursuant to Article 7 (2) of the Addenda of the Act and Article 2 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Improvement Act and receives it lawfully after such a report, the said constructor is recognized as a contractor selected pursuant to the provisions of Article 11 of the Urban Improvement Act. Thus, it is unnecessary to go through the procedure of selecting the contractor again, except in

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the execution contract of this case was concluded on July 8, 2003, and determined that the execution contract of this case was concluded after July 1, 2003, which was the date of enforcement of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, and that the selection of the contractor did not meet the requirements under Article 7 (2) of the Addenda of the Act since August 9, 2002. Thus, regardless of whether the head of Si/Gun reported within 2 months after the enforcement date of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, the construction contract of this case was not recognized as the contractor under the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, and therefore, it constitutes a violation of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions.

However, according to the records, Samsung C&T filed a report on the selection of the work executor with the high-sea mayor on October 22, 2003 after the enforcement date of the Act on August 29, 2003, but was subject to a disposition of non-acceptance on October 22, 2003, but filed an administrative appeal against the high-sea market on April 2, 2004, and the High-sea mayor filed an administrative appeal against it, and it can be recognized that it received the report on the selection of the work executor on April 17, 2004 according to the result of the administrative appeal. In such case, Samsung C&T is recognized as the work executor selected under Article 11 of the Urban Improvement Act. Thus, the above report is not necessary to go through the procedure of selecting the work executor, such as a general meeting resolution, except where the acceptance disposition of the above report becomes void automatically or it is revoked by the administrative litigation procedure.

Therefore, even if the defendant entered into a contract with Samsung C&T as the president of the instant association without undergoing the procedure for selecting a new contractor and the resolution of the general meeting, it cannot be deemed that the defendant violated Article 85 subparagraph 5 of the Urban Improvement Act.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the validity of the report of the selection of the contractor under Article 7 (2) of the Addenda of the Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)