환지예정지 지정 무효확인 등
1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is an urban development project association, which is implementing “B urban development project” in front of the C Station located in Pyeongtaek-si, and the Plaintiff is a member of the said association, who is the owner of the land within the said business area.
On August 24, 2015, the Defendant, including the Plaintiff, sent a public notice of the land substitution plan and the protocol of the land substitution plan to its members on August 24, 2015 after obtaining authorization of the implementation plan around 2013. The designation of the land substitution plan violates the principle of the “land substitution” stipulated by Article 53 of the Association’s articles of association, and does not provide any data as to which the land substitution plan was designated as a basis to deliver the land substitution plan to the Plaintiff who is a partner pursuant to Article 28(1) of the Urban Development Act, and whether the designation is reasonable. (iii) Since it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff met the consent of more than 2/3 of the land size as stipulated in Article 4(4) of the Urban Development Act and more than 1/2 of the total number of landowners, it is unlawful. Accordingly, the Defendant seeks confirmation of the invalidity of the land
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit
A. The Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit is unlawful since it does not constitute a disposition subject to administrative litigation, since it did not yet dispose of the designated land as land substitution, and the Defendant’s prior procedures to make an application for authorization of the land substitution plan public announcement and notification of the land substitution plan to the Plaintiff, which was the landowner, merely inform the Plaintiff of the land owner of the land substitution plan, as a procedure for applying for authorization of the land substitution plan. As such, the instant lawsuit is deemed lawful.
B. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on the premise that the Defendant rendered the disposition of designating the reserved land for replotting, and according to the respective descriptions of the evidence No. 6-1 and No. 2, the Defendant shall substitute the land.