2. Of the costs of appeal, the Plaintiff’s Intervenors shall bear the costs incurred from the Plaintiff’s participation, and the remainder, respectively.

A. Status of the parties

The Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Plaintiff are the owners of land or buildings (hereinafter referred to as “instant land, etc.”) located within 61,761m of square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant area”) of the land located in Jung-gu Daejeon-dong, Daejeon-dong (hereinafter referred to as “number 1 omitted), and the Defendant Intervenor joining the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “ Intervenor Cooperative”) is an association for the purpose of implementing housing redevelopment projects in the instant area.

(b) Approval of establishment promotion committee;

(1) On March 31, 2004, the Committee for Promotion of the Development and Improvement of Housing Units for the Housing Redevelopment (hereinafter “Promotion Committee”) consisting of Nonparty 1 as the head of the association, which obtained the consent of 162 of the owners of land, etc. in the instant area from 294 (5.1% of the consent rate) and applied for the approval of the establishment of the Promotion Committee of this case.

(2) Upon examining the above application for approval of establishment of the promotion committee, the Defendant demanded the promotion committee to submit supplementary materials, with omission of owners of land, etc.

(3) After examining the above application under Article 17 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) and Article 28 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Defendant confirmed the number of legitimate owners of lands, etc. in the instant area on May 18, 2004 as 301, and nine persons, among those who submitted existing written consent, including Nonparty 3, etc., failed to meet the requirement of consent due to the absence of documents, etc., and confirmed the number of consenters (52.15%) and approved the establishment of the instant promotion committee (hereinafter “approval of the promotion committee of this case”).

(c) Authorization to establish association;

(1) On April 23, 2005, the Intervenor Mutual Aid Association held an inaugural general meeting and resolved the agenda presented by the promotion committee, such as the articles of incorporation, the draft project plan, and the consent to implement the project. Nonparty 1, the representative of the promotion committee, was the representative of the Intervenor Mutual Aid Association, and filed an application for authorization for the establishment of the Jeju Housing Redevelopment Mutual Aid Association under the name of the Intervenor Mutual Aid Association on May 2, 2006.

(2) As a result of the examination on the above application, the Defendant confirmed that the number of legitimate owners of lands, etc. in the instant area was 307, and that 248 of them gave consent (as a result, 80.78% consent rate), and approved on July 31, 2006, the Intervenor Association established the Housing Redevelopment Project Association for the Housing Redevelopment of Jeju District (hereinafter “instant authorization disposition”).

(d) Approval and announcement of the project execution plan;

On October 18, 2006, the Intervenor Union submitted to the Defendant a written project implementation plan with a consent of more than a majority of the owners of the land, etc. in accordance with the provisions of the articles of association and applied for the approval of the project implementation plan. The Defendant approved and announced the project implementation plan on December 28, 2006.

(e) Revision of establishment;

(1) Upon the occurrence of additional association members due to changes in ownership, etc. and the written consent to establish an association from the owners of land, etc. in the instant area, the Intervenor Association additionally submitted to the Defendant on April 2, 2007, added four non-party 4 and other persons to the number of the owners of land, etc. in the instant area, added 15 persons including non-party 5 and others to the number of consenters on the establishment of the association, and applied for the authorization

(2) The Defendant added the above four persons to the number of the owners of land, etc. at the time of the disposition of the instant authorization for establishment, and added 12 persons to the number of consenters, excluding three of the above 15 persons (the non-party 7, 6, etc. who became the new owner after purchasing land, etc. from the existing consenters). The number of the owners of land, etc. within the instant area is 311 persons (=307 + 4), and the consenters are 260 persons (i.e., 248 + 12), among which they are 260 persons (i.e., 248 + 12), confirmed that the consent ratio was 83.6%, and issued a disposition of the modification of the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Association for the Intervenor on June 5, 2007 (hereinafter “instant authorization for modification”).

(f) Authorization and announcement of management and disposal plans;

On June 29, 2007, the Intervenor Union held a general meeting of the management and disposition and resolved a management and disposition plan, and applied for authorization for the management and disposition plan to the Defendant on October 17, 2007. The Defendant approved and announced it on March 28, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute; Eul evidence No. 1; Eul evidence No. 2; Eul evidence No. 4; Eul evidence No. 5; Eul evidence No. 8; Eul evidence No. 24; Eul evidence No. 40; Eul evidence No. 41; Eul evidence No. 5; Eul evidence No. 9 through Eul; Eul evidence No. 12; Eul evidence No. 14; Eul evidence No. 16; Eul evidence No. 16; Eul's evidence No. 18 (including each number); the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (the Plaintiff’s assertion, including the Plaintiff’s assertion, is mostly overlapped with the Plaintiff’s assertion)

The Defendant calculated the number of the owners of the instant land, etc. and the number of consenters at the time of the instant authorization and authorization for modification, on the same ground as the Plaintiff’s assertion on each of the corresponding parts of paragraph (5) below, but did not exceed 4/5 of the owners of the instant land, etc., which were required by the relevant laws and regulations, and made a disposition of authorization for establishment and authorization for modification. Since these errors as to the calculation of the number of consenters were significant and apparent defects, the Defendant primarily sought confirmation of invalidity of the instant authorization and authorization for modification, and sought revocation of the instant authorization and authorization for modification.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion

The disposition of this case and the disposition of modification of authorization against the intervenor union is merely a supplementary act to supplement the acts of establishment of redevelopment partnership and to complete its legal validity, and if there is a defect in the establishment itself, the act of establishment of the partnership, which is a basic act, is not valid even if there is authorization. Thus, in a case where there is a defect in the establishment of the association, which is a basic act, there is no legal interest to seek cancellation or nullity of the approval disposition on the ground of the defect in the basic act, separate from seeking cancellation or nullity of the basic act. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is to seek confirmation or cancellation of the approval disposition on the ground of the defect in the basic act, and it is unlawful as there is no legal interest to bring

B. Determination

Article 16(1) of the former Urban Improvement Act (amended by Act No. 8785 of Dec. 21, 2007) provides that when the committee for promotion of housing redevelopment projects and urban environment rearrangement projects intends to establish an association, it shall obtain authorization from the head of the Si/Gun with the consent of at least 4/5 of the owners of the land, etc. and the documents prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, with the consent of at least 4/5 of the owners of the land, etc.

Meanwhile, Article 28(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21171 of Dec. 17, 2008) provides for the method of calculating the number of consenters of owners of land, etc., and Article 7(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Urban Improvement Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 594 of Dec. 31, 2007) provides that the former Enforcement Rule of the Urban Improvement Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 594 of Dec. 31, 2007) shall submit a list of members when applying for authorization

In light of the above relevant laws and regulations, the issue of whether at least 4/5 of the owners of land, etc. have obtained consent among the requirements for establishing an association is not only the basic act of establishing an association, but also the requirements of the disposition of authorization for establishment. Therefore, it is unlawful that the defendant's disposition of authorization for establishment or the disposition of authorization for modification was made, although the number of consenters at the time of the disposition of authorization for establishment or the disposition of authorization for modification was erroneously calculated, and thus, each of the above dispositions should be null and void or cancelled. In this case, the plaintiff has legal interest to seek nullification or revocation of the disposition of authorization for establishment and the disposition of authorization

4. Whether the authorization for establishment of this case is legitimate

On April 2, 2007, after a disposition to grant authorization of this case was taken, the Intervenor Association additionally filed an application for authorization of modification with the Defendant on April 2, 2007, when submitting written consent of the owners of land, etc. within the instant area. On June 5, 2007, the Defendant added the number of the owners of land, etc. and the number of consenters at the time of the disposition to grant authorization of this case to the owners of land, etc. and the number of consenters, and changed the number of consenters to 311 (83.6% of consent rate) and 260 (83.6% of consent rate).

In light of the above facts, the instant authorization of modification was not authorized only for the portion exceeding the number of the owners of land, etc. and the consenters authorized in the instant authorization of establishment without holding the instant authorization of establishment, but it should be deemed that the instant authorization of establishment was absorbing the number of the owners of land, etc. and the number of consenters by including the written consent, etc. submitted based on the number of consenters and the number of consenters, and thus, the instant authorization of establishment was re-authorized.

Therefore, as long as the establishment authorization disposition of this case has not been absorptioned into the modification authorization disposition of this case, the plaintiff's assertion of the validity of the establishment authorization disposition of this case, which is a past legal relation, does not have a benefit of protection of rights. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit seeking nullification or revocation of the establishment authorization disposition of this case is unlawful.

5. Whether the modified disposition of this case is legitimate

A. Relevant regulations and criteria on the method of calculating quorum

(1) Article 2 Subparag. 9 (a) of the former Act provides that “the owner of a plot of land or structure located in a rearrangement zone shall be the owner of the plot of land or structure or persons with superficies.” Article 16 of the former Act provides that when the committee for promoting housing redevelopment projects and urban environment rearrangement projects intends to establish an association, it shall obtain authorization from the head of a Si/Gun with the consent of at least 4/5 of the owners of the plot of land, etc., along with the articles of association and the documents as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. Article 28(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that when one piece of land or structure is jointly owned by at least one person, one representative of the owners of the plot of land shall be calculated as the owner of the plot of land, etc. (Article 1(b)); where superficies is established on the plot of land, one representative of persons with superficies shall be calculated as the owner of the plot of land or structure, regardless of the number of the owners of the plot of land or structure (Article 1(c). 4).

(2) As to the method of calculating a quorum, there is no specific standard other than the above-mentioned provisions, it is inevitable to establish and calculate a reasonable standard in accordance with the comprehensive interpretation of relevant laws, etc.

(b) Whether the consent of at least four-fifths of all members is necessary;

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant calculated the total number of consenters by aggregating the number of consenters at the time of the disposition of authorization for establishment of this case and the number of consenters at the time of the disposition of authorization for establishment of this case and the number of consenters thereafter. Thus, the Defendant’s calculation of the number of consenters is unlawful.

(2) Determination

According to the facts acknowledged in Paragraph (1), since the instant authorization for modification was modified by adding new consenters based on the consenters at the time of the instant authorization for establishment, it cannot be deemed that at least 4/5 of the members of the association should be submitted separately from the written consent at the time of the instant authorization for establishment, since the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

C. Whether to compute the number of owners of land, etc.

(1) Whether land owners in the instant area were omitted

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

Nonparty 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (Co-ownership with Nonparty 14) are the owners of lands, etc. in the instant area, but omitted.

(B) Determination

According to the evidence Nos. 24-1 through 10, it is recognized that the non-party 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 respectively entered as the owner of the land or building in the area of this case or in the land cadastre or building register. Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 6, the non-party 8 borrowed money from the non-party 15 on December 15, 192 to the non-party 15 without paying the money, the non-party 15's trustee in bankruptcy applied for a voluntary auction to the Daejeon District Court on June 4, 2002. The non-party 16 did not enter the above building in the non-party 1's land registry and the non-party 1's land registry No. 9, and the non-party 8 did not enter the non-party 1's land address and the non-party 1's land registry No. 4, and the non-party 2's land registry No.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(2) Whether the owner of the land and the ground building omitted the owner of the building

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

Since the non-party 17 owns a multi-party 33m of square meters and its ground building (number 5 omitted) and only the ownership of the above site was transferred to the non-party 18, the owner of the above ground building is still the non-party 17, but the non-party 17 is excluded from the calculation of the owner of the land, etc.

(B) Determination

In full view of evidence Nos. 31-1 through 4, evidence Nos. 61-2, evidence Nos. 61, evidence Nos. 24, evidence Nos. 32-1, 2, and 10-1 through 5 of evidence Nos. 32-2, and testimony of Non-Party No. 19 by Non-Party No. 17 of the first instance trial witness, Non-Party No. 17 had resided in the above ground building without permission even after the above site was awarded to Non-Party No. 18 by a compulsory auction on or around October 13, 200, and Non-Party No. 17 submitted a written consent to establish an association as the owner of the above ground building. Accordingly, the Intervenor’s association submitted a written consent to revise the above case to the non-party No. 17 to each Defendant including the number of the owners of the land, etc. and the defendant can recognize the fact that the non-party No. 17 included in the calculation of the owner of the land, etc.

(d) Whether the number of owners of land, etc. and consenters is defective;

(a) Where one household owns two or more land or buildings;

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

① Nonparty 20, 21 married couple, ② Nonparty 22 and 23 married couple, ③ Nonparty 24 and 25 married couple, ④ Nonparty 26 and 27 married couple, ⑤ Nonparty 28 and 29 married couple as a member of the same household, who is entitled to exercise their right of consent per household pursuant to Article 9(3) of the Articles of the Intervenor Association’s articles of association, is unlawful in violation of the articles of association.

(B) Determination

1) First, according to the descriptions and images of evidence Nos. 56, evidence Nos. 59-3, 4, and 8-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 53-1, 54-1, 54-5, and Eul evidence Nos. 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 54-1 through 5, and Eul Nos. 11, the above land is not land within the area of this case; ② Nonparty 21 was selected as representative owner in co-ownership of the building Nos. 218 square meters and the building Nos. 20 and the building Nos. 532, 54-2, and Eul’s establishment around March 205.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the non-party 21 exercised the right to consent as the owner of land is without merit.

2) In addition, Article 9(3) of the Association’s articles of association provides that the non-party 2 shall be deemed one member regardless of the number of the parties concerned if the non-party 2 owns the ownership or superficies of the land or buildings owned by the non-party 2 or the non-party 2, the non-party 2 and the non-party 2 shall own the non-party 2’s lot number of the building site and the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the building No.

(1) However, Article 17 of the former Act and Article 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide for the method of calculating the number of consenters of the owners of land, etc., on the contrary that Article 19(1) of the former Act provides for the qualification of association members, which separates the owners of land, etc. and association members. ② The owners of land and structures located in the rearrangement zone have the status of association members before the association is established. After the association is established, the owners of land, etc. have the status of association members. If association members have other rights and obligations than the owners of land, etc., and thus are not necessarily consistent with the owners of land, etc. and association members. In full view of the fact that the articles of association of the intervenor association provide that “one household owns two or more land or buildings, regardless of the number of association members, it is merely a provision that determines association members, and it is difficult to view that the

Therefore, the non-party 24 and 25 couple, non-party 22 and 23 couple, non-party 26 and 27 father, and non-party 28 and 29 couple may exercise their right to consent as the owner of land, etc. in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations (it cannot be viewed differently on the ground that one person’s equity interest is extremely low). Thus, the plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit (the plaintiff asserts that the non-party 30 and the non-party 31 exercised their right to consent under the premise that the non-party 30 and the non-party 31 are one household, but there is no evidence to recognize that the non-party 30 and the non-party 31 are one household, and the whole purport of the argument in this court’s document verification and the whole purport of the argument in this court is as follows. The non-party 30 is the owner of Daedong-dong (hereinafter 13 omitted) in this case’s area, and the non-party 31 cannot be recognized as the plaintiff’s right to consent 14.7.

(2) Where the same person shares a lot of land or a majority of buildings;

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

Since Nonparty 32 and Nonparty 3 shared the land located in the area of this case (number 1 omitted) and the land located in the building and the building located in the area of this case (number 15 omitted), Nonparty 32 and Nonparty 33 shared each other, it is unlawful to assess all of them as the consenters even though they are treated as one consenters.

(B) Determination

Non-party 32 and Non-party 3 shared the land located in the area of this case and the land located in the building and Daeungdong-dong (hereinafter referred to as the "land number 15 omitted); Non-party 32 was the representative of the land and the building located in the area of this case; Non-party 33 was the representative of the land located in the area of Daeungdong-dong (hereinafter referred to as the "land number 1 omitted); and Non-party 3 was appointed as the representative of the land located in Daeungdong-dong (hereinafter referred to as the "land number 15 omitted); the fact that the number of the owners of land, etc. and the consenters was calculated as two persons at the time of the modified disposition of this case can be recognized by each entry in the evidence 14-1 through 5.

As above, there is no provision on the method of calculating the number of owners of lands, etc. and the method of calculating the number of consenters in the case where several same lots of land or buildings are jointly owned by the same person. If the representative of the co-owned real estate is calculated to be the same person, only one person falls under the case where the same person owns a number of real estate. However, since the same person is not required to select a representative for a large number of co-owned real estate, if another person is selected as a representative for each co-owned real estate, each representative can be the owner of land, etc., so if Nonparty 32 and Nonparty 33 who shared a large number of real estate select a representative for each real estate,

(3) In the case of a new owner who acquired ownership from the previous consenters

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

The non-party 34 purchased a large scale of 254 square meters and its ground buildings in the instant area from the former owner, and completed the registration of ownership transfer. However, since the non-party 35 (non-party 3) and non-party 36, who is the former owner, are already included in the consent holder, it is unlawful to include the non-party 34 in calculating the number of the owners of land, etc. and the consent holder, and calculate the number of the owners of land, etc. and the consent holder by including the non-party 34.

(B) Determination

According to the statement Nos. 17-1, 2, and 17-2 of the evidence Nos. 59-45, 46 of the evidence Nos. 59-1, 2, 57-1, 2, 54 square meters of the evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 51-1, and 51-5 of the evidence Nos. 57, the non-party Nos. 35 (3) is the owner of the above evidence Nos. 17-2, 36 as the owner of the above ground building, and the non-party Nos. 35 (3) and 36 were included in the number of the owners of the land, etc. and the number of consenters at the time of the instant disposition for modification, the non-party Nos. 34 and the non-party Nos. 2534 of the above evidence Nos. 57-23, Nov. 23, 2006 and the non-party No. 364 of the land ownership.

Article 28 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act provides that "a person who acquires land or a building from a person who has consented to the establishment of an association shall be deemed to have consented to the establishment of a promotion committee or an association." The purport of the above provision is that even if the person has acquired land, etc. from the owner of land, etc. who has consented to the establishment of the association, the validity of the consent shall not be maintained unless the previous owner has lawfully withdrawn the consent. Therefore, a new owner who has acquired the ownership of land, etc. from the previous person shall not

Therefore, the defendant's inclusion of the non-party 34 in the number of landowners and consenters together with the non-party 35, who is the former owner, in the number of consenters is illegal (one decrease in the number of landowners and consenters, respectively).

E. Whether the calculation of the number of consenters is defective

(1) If the land owner and the superficiary are different;

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

Since the 202 square meters wide from the land in the instant area (number 17 omitted) had superficies on the ownership of Nonparty 37 or the land above, it is unlawful to calculate Nonparty 37 to the consent of the non-party 37 due to the lack of the procedures for selecting a representative from the owner and the person with superficies despite the fact that there is no procedure for selecting a representative from the owner and the person with superficies.

(B) Determination

According to the evidence No. 4-2, Eul evidence No. 10, Eul evidence No. 24, and Eul evidence No. 24, the defendant is found to have issued a disposition of modification of this case except for the non-party No. 37 from the consenters because there is no representative selection procedure between the non-party No. 37 and the non-party No. 38, and therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion based on the premise that the defendant calculated the non-party No.

(2) Whether the representative was not selected for co-owned real estate

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

Nonparty 39, along with Nonparty 40, is the co-owner of the land of Daeungdong in the instant area, 245m wide and 245m wide. Nonparty 41, along with Nonparty 42, is the co-owner of the land of Daeungdong-dong (hereinafter referred to as the "number 19 omitted) to 119m large and 19m wide, so the selection of representative among the co-owners was not made even though the process of selecting one of the co-owners was followed. The parts concerning Nonparty 39 and Nonparty 41 should be excluded from the number of consenters.

(B) Determination

In full view of the purport of the entire argument in the testimony of the non-party 19 witness at the court of first instance, the defendant calculated the number of consenters except the non-party 39 and the non-party 41 at the consenters. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part, which is based on the premise that the defendant calculated the number of consenterss by including the non-party 39

(3) In the case of 12 persons who additionally submitted a written consent after the instant authorization was issued.

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since July 31, 2006, the consent of the establishment of the association is only possible until the filing date of the application for authorization. Since the intervenor association submitted 4, 43, 29, 44, 45, 46, 41, 47, 48, 49, 50 (non-party 51, non-party 51), and 12 additional written consent during the lawsuit of this case, the defendant calculated the consent rate including the above 12 consenters in calculating the number of consenters, which is unlawful.

2) In addition, the above 12 persons submitted a written consent to cover KRW 195,010,00,000 of the estimated cost of removal of buildings and construction of new buildings, i.e., the rearrangement project cost of KRW 176,916,00,00 in the written consent, but the above amount was increased to KRW 233,730,00,000 at the time of the instant authorization disposition for the establishment of a new building, respectively, and the increased amount exceeded the reasonable scope that can be reasonably anticipated. As such, the above 12 persons’ consent is null and void, and the above 12 persons’ consent is null and void.

(B) Determination

1) In addition to the above 12 written consent on April 2, 2007 according to the number of consenters and owners of the land, etc. after the authorization of this case was issued, the intervenor union filed an application for the authorization of this case on June 5, 2007, and received the authorization of this case from the defendant on June 5, 2007. The above 12 written consent was not for the approval of this case, but for the approval of this case. Thus, since the above 12 written consent was submitted at the time of the application for the authorization of this case, it cannot be said that there was any defect in the above 12 written consent. Accordingly, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2) In addition, at the time of approving the establishment of the instant project, the rearrangement project cost was estimated to be KRW 195,010,00,000, and the rearrangement project cost was estimated to be KRW 176,916,00,000, and the Intervenor’s association submitted the project implementation plan with the rearrangement project cost of KRW 233,730,000,000 in December 28, 2006. As such, even if the rearrangement project cost was increased, the fact that the said 12 person submitted the written consent, even though the said 12 person submitted the written consent, is without dispute between the parties. As such, the Plaintiff’s consent cannot be reasonably asserted that the change in the project cost was anticipated to have been reasonably expected to have been made in the name of the association members, and thus, the Plaintiff’s change in the project cost and the sale amount could not be reasonably expected to have been made in light of the terms and conditions as it is estimated to change the project cost.

(4) In the case of submitting written consent to establish an association under the name of the agent

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

The consent of Nonparty 53 was submitted in the name of Nonparty 53, who was Nonparty 52 to the owner of the land and building in the instant area, and the consent form for the establishment of the association was submitted in the name of Nonparty 53, who was not qualified as an agent under Article 10(2) of the Intervenor’s Articles of Incorporation. Thus, Nonparty 53 should be excluded from the consent form.

(B) Determination

According to the evidence No. 41, Article 10(2) of the Articles of the Intervenor Union’s articles of association of the Intervenor Union provides that “The exercise of rights by proxy of a partner shall not, in principle, be recognized, and exceptionally, a member is unable to exercise his/her authority and submit delegations by designating a proxy from among his/her spouse, lineal ascendants and descendants, and siblings or a resident abroad designates a proxy.”

However, the above provision is not applicable to the exercise of the right to consent held in the position of the owner of land, etc. before the association is established as a proxy after the association is established. The above provision is not applicable to the exercise of the right to consent held in the position of the owner of land, etc. 5m2 after the association is established. In full view of the statement No. 4-2, Eul evidence No. 24, Eul evidence No. 58-1, and Eul evidence No. 64-1, and 2, the whole purport of the argument is as follows: ① The non-party No. 52 is the owner of the building 375m2 and the land No. 282m2, which is the owner of the building 5m2, and the non-party No. 52, who is the owner of the building 5m2 and the non-party No. 2, the non-party No. 53, who is the owner of the building of this case, submitted a modified consent form to the non-party No. 5's consent form.

Therefore, it is legitimate that the Defendant included Nonparty 52 in the consenters, and this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(5) In the case of written consent to establish an association before approval for establishment

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

The written consent for the establishment of an association must contain essential descriptions for its members, including those specified in each subparagraph of Article 26(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions. Therefore, the written consent of Nonparty 55 among the written consent submitted to the intervenor association or the defendant, and the written consent of 32 of the written consent of Nonparty 55 and the written consent of Nonparty 56 and 57, which were previously written prior to its establishment. The written consent of Nonparty 56 and 57, which was revised from January 2004 to January 2005, shall be deemed to have been written prior to the approval of the establishment of the committee, since the written consent is not affixed with the modified portion, even though the written consent was revised from January 204 to January 2005.

(B) Determination

1) As to the point at which Nonparty 5 submitted written consent to the establishment of the association

According to Gap or evidence 85-1, it is stated that the written consent of non-party 55 was made on May 6, 2004, before May 18, 2004, which is the date of approval for the establishment of a committee of promoters. However, considering the whole purport of arguments in Eul or Eul-2 and the testimony of non-party 55 of the witness witness of the trial, the intervenor association prepared the first written consent form and the second written consent form, including the first written consent form and the second written consent form, the plaintiff's new consent form and the second written consent form, and the second written consent form, the second written new consent form and the second written consent form, the second written consent form and the fifth written new consent form, the second written consent form and the fifth written new consent form, the second written consent form and the fifth written consent form are essential.

2) As to the point at which the above 32 persons and the non-party 56 and 57 foundation foundation foundation submitted written consent to establish the association

(3) In full view of the following facts: (i) evidence Nos. 63 through 64; (ii) evidence Nos. 12, Gap or 29; (iii) evidence Nos. 56; (iv) evidence Nos. 52, Eul or 76; and (v) evidence Nos. 85 through 119; and (iv) evidence Nos. 15 of the first instance court’s witness No. 58; and (v) evidence Nos. 65, 60; and (iv) evidence Nos. 15 and 15 (including number) submitted by Nonparty 2 to Nonparty 5; (iii) new written consent form or 5’s new written consent form No. 65; and (v) new written consent form No. 15, which was submitted by Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 6; and (v) new written consent form No. 1, 2004.

(6) In the case of written consent for the establishment without signature:

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

The written consent for the establishment of the association by Nonparty 62 is affixed only with a seal, and there is no signature, and it has no effect as a written consent.

(B) Determination

According to the statement No. 66-1, the non-party 62 stated the name, resident registration number, address, telephone number, etc. in the "personal information of the owner of the house" column of the front upper top of the consent form for the establishment of the association printed on both sides. However, although it is recognized that the non-party 62 did not sign the "cognier" column at the lower end of the back surface and affixed only a seal imprint, it is recognized that the above recognized evidence and Gap submitted the whole purport of the pleadings, namely, the non-party 62 submitted a certificate of personal seal consistent with the seal imprint affixed thereto in submitting the above consent form, and the "use" column is stated as the "use for the establishment of the Housing Redevelopment Association of Heung-1" column, the non-party 62 did not sign the "cognier" column, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff submitted the initial consent form is without merit.

(7) Where personal information is different;

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as Nonparty 31’s signature in the form of Nonparty 31, not Nonparty 31, on the part of Nonparty 31, the owner of the building and Nonparty 31’s written consent for the establishment of the association in the instant area (number 14 omitted), the said written consent is invalid.

(B) Determination

According to the statement No. 57-1 of evidence No. 57, the name, resident registration number, address, etc. of the owner of the house at the front top of the written consent for the establishment of the association printed on both sides was stated in the "personal information of the owner of the house" column of the front top of the written consent for the establishment of the association, but the "co-owner" column at the lower bottom of the back surface is recognized as having written the signature of "non-party 63". Meanwhile, in full view of the above recognized evidence, Eul evidence No. 4-2, Eul No. 24, and Eul No. 57-2's evidence No. 57-2, Non-party 31 submitted a written consent for the establishment of the association in the instant region (number No. 14 omitted) and 139 square meters, and the owner of the building on the ground of this case submitted a written consent for the establishment of the association, and both sidess submitted a certificate of personal seal impression issued on May 31, 2005, the plaintiff's consent No. 31's.

(8) Whether a seal imprint is forged

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as Nonparty 64, the owner of the building site and each ground of the instant area, who is the owner of the building site and each of the instant areas, was forged by the third party’s moving method without being affixed by the principal’s seal affixed on the written consent of Nonparty 64, which is the owner of the building, within the instant area, the true consent cannot be deemed to have been obtained.

(B) Determination

In full view of the statement No. 63 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the entire argument in this court’s result of document verification, it is recognized that Nonparty 64’s signature and seal affixed on the back of the written consent for the establishment of the association with Nonparty 64 was similar to that of the seal imprint, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that Nonparty 64’s seal imprint was forged, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(9) In the case of ○○ church

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

Since the land and buildings within the instant area (number 23 and 24 omitted) are collectively owned by the ○○○ church, it should be decided by the resolution of the general meeting, and since the above church did not go through such procedures, the above church shall be excluded from calculating the number of consenters.

(B) Determination

According to the statements of the evidence Nos. 75-1 through 3, it is recognized that the consent letter on the land and building of Daeungdong (hereinafter lot Nos. 23 and 24 omitted), the official seal of 00 church is affixed to the consent letter on the land and building, and that the certificate of the seal impression is attached to it. When the defendant approves the establishment of the association, it is necessary to examine whether the consent letter attached to the certificate of the seal impression has been submitted, and it is not necessary to examine whether the above church passed a resolution of the general meeting. Thus, it is necessary to prove that the above church consented without the resolution of the general meeting, and since there is no evidence to acknowledge this,

(10) If the written consent is not required to contain any required description

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

The written consent of the non-party 65, 66, 67, 68, 43, and 69 are not stated in the necessary matters required under each subparagraph of Article 26(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas, and thus the above six consent is unlawful.

(B) Determination

According to Article 26(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the consent of the owner of land, etc. shall be obtained by obtaining consent from the written consent stating the outline of the design of the building to be constructed, the outlines of the expenses incurred in removing and constructing the building, etc.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit, and thus, Nonparty 65, 66, 67, 68, 43, and 69 must be excluded from the consenters (reduction of the number of consenters).

(11) Whether there is a defect in the certificate of seal impression

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

The written consent of △ Book is not accompanied by the certificate of the personal seal impression, and the use of the certificate of the personal seal impression attached to the written consent of Nonparty 70, Nonparty 71, 72, 73, 74, 3, 75, 76, 77, 76, 76, 6, 4, 34, and 46 is different, or omitted or modified, and since the date of issuance is 201 or the date of issuance is 201, the written consent of the establishment of the association accompanied by the above certificate of the personal seal impression cannot be said to guarantee the genuine expression of the personal seal impression, they must be

(B) Determination

1) First, according to the statement No. 13-2 by Eul, it can be acknowledged that the consent letter submitted by △ Book is accompanied by a certificate of personal seal impression. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2) In addition, Gap's certificate 29-11, 13, 15, 17, 20, and 36; Eul's certificate 2; Eul's certificate 71-2; Eul's certificate 2; Eul's certificate 2; Eul's certificate 26-2; Eul's certificate 31-2; Eul's certificate 35-2; Eul's certificate 38-2; Eul's certificate 56; ①'s certificate 70 and 71's certificate 2; Eul's certificate 36; Eul's certificate 2; Eul's certificate 70 and 71's certificate 2; Eul's certificate 36; Eul's certificate 2; Eul's certificate 72's certificate 2; Eul's certificate 2; Eul's certificate 2; Eul's certificate 72's business plan 70; Eul's certificate 7; Eul's certificate 7; non-party 4's certificate 72's consent 7.

① However, Article 28(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that “A consent (including withdrawal of consent) of the owner of a plot of land, etc. shall be made by means of a written consent using a certificate of seal impression when applying for authorization to establish an association.” Article 7(1)3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act provides that “documents proving consent to establish an association of the owner of land, etc. and consent matters” shall be attached to documents to be submitted when applying for authorization to establish an association. As such, Article 7(1)3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act provides that “a document proving consent matters shall be attached to the owner of a plot of land, etc.” (Article 28(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the purpose of clarifying consent by means of verifying whether the seal imprint affixed on the written consent is consistent with the seal imprint’s certificate.” (2) In light of the current Act and its Enforcement Decree do not impose restrictions on the validity of the certificate of seal impression, and there is no need to state any use other than the real estate sale.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(12) In case of submitting a different certificate of seal impression from that of a written consent

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

Since the seal affixed on the written consent of Nonparty 78 and 47 is different from the seal affixed on the certificate of the personal seal impression, such consent is unlawful.

(B) Determination

According to the statement Nos. 73-1, 2, and 16-1 of the certificate No. 73-1, the defendant demanded supplementation when the non-party 78's seal impression originally submitted was found to be different from that on the certificate of the personal seal impression. It can be recognized that the non-party 78 again submitted a written consent with the certificate of the personal seal impression affixed, and the non-party 36-1 and 2's each statement and image are recognized as the same as the seal of the certificate of the personal seal impression, and the non-party 47's written consent withdrawal was submitted later on the premise that the non-party 47 consented to the establishment of the association (Evidence No. 96-5). Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(13) In the case of revocation of consent:

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

Although owners of land, etc. withdraw their consent to establish an association, it is illegal that the defendant did not exclude the withdrawn party from the number of consenters despite the withdrawal of consent to establish an association by the intervenor.

(B) Determination

1) Article 28(1)5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act provides that "a person who withdraws consent prior to an application for approval of a promotion committee or prior to an application for authorization for the establishment of an association shall be excluded from the number of consenters of the land owner, etc. However, the above provision provides that "a person who withdraws consent prior to an application for approval of a promotion committee or prior to an application for the establishment of an association shall not be excluded from the number of consenters of the land owner, etc.: (a) the outline of design of a building to be constructed; (b) the outline of expenses incurred in removal and construction of the building; (c) the cost sharing of the building; (d) the ownership after completion of the project; (e) the ownership after completion of the project; and (v) the association’s articles of association shall not be excluded from the number of consenterss for the establishment of the association, notwithstanding the fact that there is no change in the important matters of the rearrangement project at the time of the application for approval for the establishment of the association; and (d) the stability of the implementation of the project is to ensure stability.

2) We examine the following facts: Gap, Eul, Eul's evidence 3-1, 2, 8, 5-1, 5-6, Gap's evidence 6, Eul's evidence 7, Gap's evidence 8-1, 2, 9-1, 2, and 10-1, 2, Eul's evidence 25-19 through 31, Eul's evidence 43, Eul's whole statement of evidence 43, and Eul's evidence 79, which consented to the establishment of the intervenor's association, shall be excluded from Gap's association's approval of establishment of the non-party 1, 2, 4, and 83, and the changed articles of association of the non-party 1, 206, and the changed articles of association of the association of the non-party 2, 51, around March 30, 206, and the changed articles of association of the association of the non-party 2, 2006.

3) As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that, in light of the fact that Nonparty 82 and 83’s declaration of intent to withdraw consent reached the Intervenor’s association after March 10, 2006, the date of the amendment of the above articles of incorporation, the withdrawal of consent by Nonparty 82 and 83 should be excluded from the number of consenters for the approval of the amendment of this case since the amendment of the above articles of incorporation was made after the amendment. However, it is insufficient to recognize that Nonparty 82 and 83’s declaration of intent to withdraw consent reached the Intervenor’s association after March 10, 206, only the evidence mentioned in the above 25-1 through 31 of evidence 25-2 and the statement mentioned in the above 25-1 through 31 are insufficient to recognize that the Intervenor’s declaration of intention to withdraw consent reached the Intervenor’s association after March 10, 2006, the Plaintiff’s assertion

4) In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the articles of incorporation of the intervenor association should be excluded from the number of consenterss of the non-party 82,83,80, and 81 who had withdrawn consent after being amended on April 23, 2005. Thus, considering the evidence stated in paragraphs (2) and (3) above, the above non-party 82 et al. consented to the establishment of the association and withdrawn consent from the non-party 82 and 83 on March 9, 2006 at least before August 12, 2005, but the intervenor association established the articles of incorporation of the association after holding an inaugural general meeting on April 23, 2005. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that this part of the articles of incorporation of the association cannot be seen as being amended after the withdrawal of consent.

5) The Plaintiff asserts that, as Nonparty 82, 83, and 81, etc. withdraw their consent to establish an association again, or Nonparty 84 et al. withdraw their consent to establish an association by withdrawing their consent, they should be excluded from the number of consenters. However, according to Article 28(1)5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, only the person who withdraws consent prior to the application for authorization is excluded from the number of consenters. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement of evidence No. 96, evidence No. 21, evidence No. 21, and evidence No. 82 (including the number of consenters), the above withdrawn person alleged by the Plaintiff can be recognized as having withdrawn his consent to establish an association after April 2, 207, which is the date of the application for authorization for change of the case. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit

6) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is with reasons only for Nonparty 79 and 51 (in number of consenters reduction by two).

(14) As to the assertion of unfair legal act

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

32 written consent in the list of prior consents and non-party 82,83,80,81, etc. who has withdrawn the later consent, without proper knowledge of the contents of the redevelopment project, agreed by the intervenor's promoters' deception and coercion that the redevelopment project would be an unconditional interest. This constitutes an unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Code and thus null and void.

(B) Determination

The Plaintiff’s assertion 19-1 and 2 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(f) Redetermination of assets between owners of land, etc. and consenters;

As seen earlier, if the number of the owners of land, etc. and the number of consenters is re-calculated, the number of the owners of land, etc. shall be 311 to 310 to 310 to 310 (in the case of a new owner who acquired the ownership from the previous consenters, excluding one person in the case of a new owner who acquired the ownership from the previous consenters), and the number of consenters shall be 260 to 9 at the time of the instant disposition for the authorization for the modification (in the case of a new owner who acquired the ownership from the previous consenters, 1 + 6 in the case of a new owner who acquired the ownership from the previous consenters, 251 to 2 in the case of a necessary entry in the written consent, 260 - 9), and the ratio of consent to the establishment of the intervenor shall be 80.96% (= 251 to 310). As such, the intervenor association obtained consent to the establishment of the intervenor association at least 4/5

G. Sub-committee

Therefore, the modification disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiffs' assertion seeking nullification of the modification disposition of this case or seeking revocation thereof is without merit.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the part of the claim for nullification and revocation of the authorization of this case is dismissed as unlawful and all of them are dismissed. The main claim for nullification of the authorization of this case and the preliminary claim for its revocation are dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Shin Young-chul (Presiding Judge)