2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the supplementary participation costs are assessed against the Defendant, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant.

Preliminary claim: The disposition stated in the text shall be revoked.

A. In accordance with Article 3 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Do Government Act”), the head of Seoul Special Metropolitan City formulated a basic plan for urban and residential environment improvement in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Housing Development Project and the residential environment improvement project sector, and publicly announced on June 25, 2004 by Seoul Public Notice No. 2004-204 on June 25, 2004. Under the above basic plan, the Dongjak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City's 65 large scale 56,595 square meters (hereinafter "land within the project scheduled zone of this case") was designated as a potential zone for housing redevelopment improvement project, and the latter Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City was designated and publicly announced as a rearrangement zone under Article 207-1999 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City's notification on June 21, 2007.

B. The Plaintiff was an incorporated foundation upon the establishment permission of the competent authority on May 9, 1970 for the purpose of the business of protecting the public morals and major business among the three-party wage attitudes during the Joseon Dynasty, and completed the registration of incorporation on September 24, 1970. Some of the land in the rearrangement zone of this case are owned or owned by himself, and the rest of the Intervenor except the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s 11 Group Housing Redevelopment Promotion Committee (hereinafter “instant Promotion Committee”) owns an unauthorized building on the ground of the land in the rearrangement zone of this case.

C. The Intervenor 2 filed an application with the Defendant for approval on the composition of the instant committee with the consent of 182 persons among 52 landowners and building owners, 16 landowners and 273 building owners (the 272 of them are unauthorized building owners) on the ground that 54.25%, which is a majority of owners of lands, etc. as stipulated in Article 2 subparagraph 9 (a) of the Do administration Act, consents to the composition of the instant committee for promotion on the ground that the Defendant consented to the composition of the instant committee for promotion on April 13, 2005 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 10-1 through 6, Eul evidence 10-1 through 7, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 3-1 through 3, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 12-1 through 3, Eul evidence 13-1, 2, Eul evidence 24, Eul evidence 31, and Eul evidence 31, respectively.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case has significant and obvious defects for the following reasons, and thus the disposition of this case constitutes null and void. Even if such defects do not reach a significant and obvious extent, the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case should be revoked in violation of the above reasons.

1) Even though the concept of “owner of land, etc.” under Article 2 subparag. 9(a) of the Do Government Act does not include the owner of an unauthorized building located in a rearrangement zone, the Defendant issued the instant disposition on the premise that the owner of an unauthorized building is also included in the owner of land, etc.

2) The registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed in the name of Jil Leisure Construction Co., Ltd. with respect to some of the land within the instant project scheduled zone at the time the application was filed for approval as to the composition of the instant promotion committee, falls under the invalidation of cause, since it was actively recommended and completed by the Park Jin, the representative director of the said company, in the act of breach of trust of Lee Byung-gun, the former representative of the Plaintiff, and thus, the said company did not have the authority to give consent to the composition of the instant promotion committee. However, the said company

3) Even if the concept of the owner of a building without permission is included in the concept of the owner of a building without permission as prescribed by the Do administration Act, the building without permission should exist only in fact. A large number of the owners of an unauthorized building who agreed to the composition of the instant promotion committee is registered only in the unauthorized building management ledger in form, and the owners who claim ownership of an unauthorized building with respect to the building not having been actually destroyed or lost.

B. Relevant statutes

The same as the entries in the attached statutes (hereinafter referred to as all the statutes cited shall refer to the relevant statutes in the attached statutes).

(c) Markets:

1) First, we examine whether the Defendant’s disposition of this case is legitimate, premised on the fact that the owner of an unauthorized building located in the rearrangement zone is included in the owners of land, etc. as stipulated in Article 2 Subparag. 9(a) of the Do administration Act.

2) Articles 2 subparag. 9(a) and 19 of the Do Government Act provide that the owners or persons with superficies of the land or buildings located in the rearrangement zone shall be members of the Housing Redevelopment Project Association. In principle, unauthorized buildings should be removed in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. It is not permissible to grant the owners the qualification of association members and allow them to enjoy benefits from the implementation of the Housing Redevelopment Project as a result of obtaining profits from the illegal act; and in light of the fact that there is no substantial need to regulate the unreasonable construction of unauthorized houses in order to smoothly implement the Housing Redevelopment Project, the buildings that are granted the owners the qualification of association members under Article 2 subparag. 9(a) and Article 19 of the Do Government Act refer to legitimate buildings in principle, and are not included in the building without permission. However, each union may determine the qualification of association members to the owners of unauthorized buildings within a certain scope (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Nu75979, Jul. 27, 199). 9).

3) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to the instant case, the instant promotion committee is established mainly by the owners of unauthorized buildings in the instant improvement zone, and its executives are all the owners of unauthorized buildings, and most of the owners of land except the owners of unauthorized buildings did not consent to the formation of the promotion committee of the instant case. The 69 owners of land, etc. excluded the owners of unauthorized buildings, agree to the formation of the promotion committee of the instant case, and the 5 owners of land did not meet the requirements for approval under Article 13(2) of the Do Government Act. Thus, the aforementioned facts can be seen as having been examined by the legal principles as seen earlier. In other words, the owners of unauthorized buildings cannot be deemed as the owners of land, etc. who are admitted as members in principle. However, if the owners of unauthorized buildings were to be exceptionally admitted by the articles of incorporation, it is reasonable to view that the owners of land, etc., who were forced to establish the promotion committee under Article 2 subparag. 9(a) of the Do Government Act, and that the owners of land and were forced to establish the redevelopment committee.

4) As to this, in light of the provisions of Article 2 subparag. 3(c), Article 4(1), Article 2(2)3, Article 10(1), Article 2 subparag. 1, and Article 3(2)1 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (hereinafter “City Ordinance”), the Defendant asserts that the existing unauthorized buildings fall under old and inferior buildings within the rearrangement zone subject to the redevelopment project, and thus, the existing unauthorized buildings are included in the owners of lands, etc. as stipulated under Article 2 subparag. 9(a) of the Do Government Act. However, the above provisions cited by the Defendant are merely about the rearrangement zone subject to the establishment of rearrangement plan, and are not related to the scope of the owners of lands, etc., and thus, the above assertion by the Defendant cannot be accepted.

5) In addition, in light of the standard articles of incorporation of the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Association and the provisions of Article 9(1) and (2), Article 24(1)1 of the City Ordinance, the defendant asserts that the owners of existing unauthorized buildings are included in the owners of lands, etc. who are entitled to consent to the composition of the Promotion Committee of this case. However, each of the above provisions cited by the defendant as the grounds for the defendant is interpreted to be that the owners of unauthorized buildings can be granted membership qualification, etc. by the articles of incorporation of the association after the establishment of the Housing Redevelopment Project Association, and it cannot be deemed that the owners of unauthorized buildings are included in the owners of lands, etc. as stipulated in Article 2 subparag. 9(a) of the Do Government Act and are naturally qualified as association members. Thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

6) In addition, the defendant asserts that even if there is a defect in the basic act, if there is no defect in the authorization disposition itself, the disposition of this case cannot be asserted immediately on the ground of the defect in the basic act. Thus, in this case where there is no defect in the defendant's disposition itself, the plaintiff cannot contest the disposition of this case on the ground of the defect in the basic act. However, although it is apparent that the plaintiff's claim of this case did not meet the requirements for approval of the majority consent of the owners of land, etc. according to the documents attached to the application for approval of the committee of this case, the defendant's claim for correction on the ground that the disposition of this case itself

7) Therefore, the instant disposition by the Defendant, premised on the fact that the owner of an unauthorized building is included in the owners of land, etc. as stipulated in Article 2 subparag. 9 (a) of the Do administration Act, is in violation of the important part of the laws and regulations, and such defect is deemed to be null and void as significant and objective.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's remaining arguments shall be accepted as the plaintiff's main claim of this case, which seeks confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of this case without a separate review, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Dong-gu (Presiding Judge)