[2] In a case where the State or a local government owns land or a building in the rearrangement zone, whether the consent to the establishment of a rearrangement project association and the promotion of a rearrangement project should be explicitly expressed in writing (negative)

According to the language and text of relevant statutes, such as Article 16(3) of the former Act and Article 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Act, even if there are several parcels of state-owned or public land in a rearrangement zone, the owner of land or building should be calculated as one owner regardless of the number of ownership.

[2] [Majority Opinion] (A) Article 17(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”) provides that “The method of consent of the owners of land or buildings shall be based on a written consent using a certificate of seal impression, and the method of consent of the State or local government, in which a certificate of seal impression or a certificate of seal impression is not available, shall be attached.”

Although the state or local government also constitutes the owner of land or building who is required to obtain consent to establish an association, it seems that the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas does not provide for the specific consent method of the state or local government, considering that the state or local government is in a special public position that is granted various authority and role related to the rearrangement project under the former Act on the Maintenance

Therefore, the consent on the promotion of the maintenance project including the establishment of the maintenance project association by the state or local government which is the land owner or building owner is not necessarily required to be explicitly expressed in writing, etc.

(B) In light of the fact that the State and local governments are granted various public authority and the duty to support a rearrangement project and to cooperate in the promotion of a project for the realization of public welfare, etc., if a local government representing the competent authority that approves the establishment of the relevant rearrangement project association owns land in the rearrangement zone, the local government can be deemed to have consented to the establishment of the relevant rearrangement project association through the disposition of authorization to establish the association. In addition, if the State or local government representing the authority of the rearrangement zone owns the State or public land in the rearrangement zone, through consultation procedures, etc. during the process of consultation from the designation of the rearrangement zone to the specific disposition of authorization to establish the competent authority, if the State or local government did not explicitly express or oppose the relevant rearrangement project itself or the project implementation by the relevant rearrangement project association, it can be deemed that the State or local government consented to the establishment of the relevant rearrangement project association

[Dissenting Opinion by Justice Lee In-bok and Justice Kim Shin] (A) The consent to the establishment of a reconstruction association refers to an explicit consent by a statutory form, and the submission of a written consent using a seal imprint association is the only method of verifying the consent of the consent holder, and it is not effective as an act of lack of such consent. Unless such consent is submitted, deeming that there is an act or appearance of the consent to conceal the consent is not permissible.

Therefore, even if the consent is made orally, the person who did not submit a written consent, the person who submitted a written consent that does not contain statutory matters, and the person who did not attach a written consent to the written consent cannot be deemed as the person who consented to the establishment of the association.

(B) The formulation of a rearrangement plan and the designation of a rearrangement zone are separate procedures that completely differ from the establishment of an association. It is logical to view that the State or a local government did not express any objection to the establishment of a rearrangement plan and the designation of a rearrangement zone to consent to establish an association that takes place after a considerable period of time has elapsed since the State or a local government did not express its objection to the implementation of an improvement project. An association establishment is an act by law on the establishment of a corporation and an agreement to establish an association is a matter of whether a corporation is a member, i.e., a member of a corporation, and the purpose, content, effect, etc. of expression of intent in the course of consultation on an improvement plan are different. Furthermore, an improvement project is not necessarily implemented by an association, but can directly implement it by the head of a Si/Gun, etc. or determine a separate project operator at the pre-establishment stage. Therefore,

According to Article 16 and Article 17 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, if state-owned or public land owned by the State or a local government exists in an improvement zone for implementing a housing reconstruction project, the State or a local government shall also consent to the establishment of the association in writing.

1. As to the claim for nullification and revocation of the approval of the modification of the promotion committee for the new housing reconstruction consolidation project in Zone One (hereinafter “instant association”).

The Plaintiffs also filed an appeal against the part of the lower judgment against the claim for nullification and revocation of this part of the judgment. However, no grounds of appeal as to this part of the appeal and the appellate brief are stated in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the invalidity confirmation and revocation of the instant disposition approving the establishment of the association

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of approval for composition and amendment to composition

The disposition approving the establishment of an association promotion committee (hereinafter referred to as the "promotion committee") is a disposition granting its effect by supplementing the act constituting a promotion committee, which is a non-corporate group, which is the main body for the establishment of the association, while the disposition approving the establishment of a promotion committee is a kind of authoritative disposition granting the status as an administrative body (public corporation) with authority to implement a housing reconstruction project if it satisfies the legal requirements. The purpose and character of the two are different. Since the authority of the promotion committee is limited to carrying out the affairs to promote the establishment of the association, if the rights and obligations related to the duties of the promotion committee are comprehensively succeeded to the association as a whole upon the disposition approving the establishment of the promotion committee, the promotion committee shall achieve its objective. The disposition approving the establishment of a promotion committee shall meet more strict consent requirements than the consent requirements of the promotion committee, and is established through the resolution of the inaugural general meeting and the collective decision-making act such as the determination of the articles of association and the selection of the executives. Thus, it cannot be reasonable to recognize illegality solely on the basis of the illegality of approval requirements of the promotion committee composition.

Therefore, insofar as a housing reconstruction association is established after meeting the consent requirements prescribed by the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “former Act”), an application for authorization to establish a promotion committee cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground of defects in the organization approval of the promotion committee already extinguished. However, in special circumstances where an application for authorization to establish a promotion committee may be deemed null and void due to defects in the organization approval of the promotion committee, an application for authorization to establish a promotion committee may be deemed unlawful. However, as seen earlier, since an application for authorization to establish a promotion committee is made after meeting the consent requirements prescribed by statutes and the entity of the promotion committee was formed through the inaugural general meeting, the application for authorization to establish a promotion committee cannot be deemed null and void on the ground of illegality of the organization of the promotion committee or the approval approval. The application for authorization to establish a promotion committee is made only to the extent that the legislative intent of the promotion committee system should be expanded within one improvement zone under the former Act.

The lower court determined that the instant disposition to authorize the establishment of an association cannot be deemed unlawful due to the defect in the instant organization approval disposition, even if there was a defect in the instant organization approval disposition against the instant promotion committee, which is a telegraphic body of the Defendant Intervenor Partnership (hereinafter “ Intervenor Union”), since the instant organization approval disposition is not null and void as a matter of course, and its defect is not succeeded to the instant organization approval disposition.

Examining the evidence duly examined by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is difficult to view that there is a defect from the legislative purport of the promotion committee system that allows one promotion committee to perform the duties of promoting the establishment of an association within one improvement zone in the composition approval disposition of this case, and this part of the judgment below is somewhat inappropriate, but the judgment below is just in its conclusion that the disposition of approving the establishment of this case cannot be deemed unlawful due to the defect in the composition approval of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the effect of approval of the

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to consent to the establishment of the association of the land owned by the State or a local government (hereinafter “State-owned and public land”).

1) As to the number of land or buildings owners

According to Article 16(3) and (2) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2277, Jul. 15, 2010; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) where a committee for promotion of housing reconstruction projects intends to establish an association, it shall obtain authorization from the head of a Si/Gun, along with the articles of association and the documents determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, after obtaining consent from at least 3/4 of the owners of land or buildings within an area other than a housing complex and landowners of at least 2/3 of the land area. In addition, according to Article 17(1) of the former Act, the consent of the owners of land or buildings shall be based on a written consent using a seal imprint, and in this case, a certificate of seal imprint shall be attached. Meanwhile, Article 28 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22277, Jul. 15, 2010). hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”).

According to the language and text of relevant statutes, such as Article 16(3) of the former Act and Article 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Act, even if there are several parcels of state-owned or public land in a rearrangement zone, the owner of the land or building should be calculated as one owner regardless of the number of ownership.

2) As to the consent to establish an association on state-owned and public land

A) Article 35(3) of the Constitution declares that “The State shall endeavor to enable all citizens to live a pleasant residential life through housing development policies, etc.” The former Urban Improvement Act was prepared to perform the constitutional obligations of this State, and its legislative purpose is to contribute to improving urban environments and improving the quality of residential life (Article 1).

According to the provisions of Article 3(1), (3) through (5), and (7) of the former Act, a person authorized to formulate a master plan for urban and residential environment improvement is the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Mayor, and a market other than a large city with a population of not less than 50,00 (hereinafter referred to as "large city") with the exception of Seoul Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities shall obtain approval from the Do Governor when formulating or amending the master plan. The Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, Do Governor (hereinafter referred to as "Mayor/Do Governor") or the Mayor of a large city intends to formulate or revise a master plan, or the Do Governor intends to approve the formulation or amendment of a master plan for a market which is not a large city market, the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Mayor shall consult with the head of the relevant administrative agency before deliberation by the local urban planning committee. In addition, when formulating or amending the master plan, the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Mayor shall report to the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs in accordance with the provisions of Article 4(1), (2) and (5).

As such, the former Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas provides the basis for the establishment of a partnership project, such as the establishment of a master plan for urban and residential environment improvement and designation of a rearrangement zone, and provides various authority and roles to participate in the phased procedures for implementing a rearrangement project to the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs or the Mayor/Do Governor

Meanwhile, Article 64 through 68 of the former Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Public Land provided for a housing reconstruction project between a rearrangement project association and the State or a local government has separate provisions, such as Articles 64 through 68, etc., and the State or public property in a rearrangement zone is restricted to prevent sale or transfer for purposes other than a rearrangement project, etc. so that project implementers can smoothly implement a rearrangement project by utilizing the State or public land, and if the details of the disposal of State or public property are included in a project implementation plan, the right of the property management

In addition, where a person, other than the Mayor/head of a Gun or the Korea Housing Corporation, intends to implement a rearrangement project, an association consisting of owners of land, etc. shall be established (Article 13(1)); the housing reconstruction project may be implemented by the association or jointly implemented with the head of a Si/Gun or the Korea Housing Corporation, etc. with the consent of a majority of the association members (Article 8(2)); the head of a Si/Gun may directly implement the rearrangement project or designate the owners of land, etc., designated developer or the Korea Housing Corporation, etc. as the project implementer only when there is a special reason prescribed by each subparagraph of Article 8(4) of the former Act (Article 8(4)); thus, the subject of the

In addition, the former Urban Improvement Act grants the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs or the Mayor/Do governor the authority to report on the performance of the improvement project and the authority to make a report or submit data, or the public official under his/her jurisdiction to investigate matters concerning the project (Article 75). In certain cases, the former Urban Improvement Act grants the project implementer the supervisory authority to take necessary measures such as cancellation, modification or suspension of the disposition and suspension or modification of the project (Article 77).

B) Article 17(1) of the former Act provides that “The method of consent of the owners of land or buildings shall be based on a written consent using a certificate of seal impression; furthermore, the former Act does not provide for the method of consent of the State or local governments where the certificate of seal impression or the certificate of seal impression is not available.”

Although the state or local government also constitutes the owner of land or building who is required to obtain consent to establish an association, it seems that the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas does not provide for the specific consent method of the state or local government, considering that the state or local government is in a special public position that has been granted various authority and roles related to rearrangement projects under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of

Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the consent to the promotion of the rearrangement project including the establishment of the state or local government which is the land owner or building owner is not necessarily required to be explicitly expressed in writing.

C) However, the rearrangement project is aimed at the planned rearrangement of an area where urban functions or residential environment is inferior, and the implementation of the project is consistent with the public interest to be achieved by the former Urban Improvement Act. In principle, the executor of the rearrangement project is a rearrangement project partnership, and only one rearrangement project partnership with the consent of the owners of land or buildings can be established in the rearrangement zone under the conditions of majority and size of the establishment of an association under Articles 16(3) and 16(2) of the former Urban Improvement Act. In addition, if the rearrangement zone is designated in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the former Urban Improvement Act and the promotion committee with the approval of the establishment of the rearrangement zone files an application for authorization to establish the rearrangement project based on the rearrangement zone, it is confirmed that the implementation of the rearrangement project by the rearrangement project association is consistent with the public interest. Accordingly, the State and local governments obligated to realize the public welfare of citizens and residents should provide support and cooperation to properly implement the rearrangement project to be implemented by the rearrangement project established by the competent

D) In addition, in light of the fact that the State and local governments are granted various public authority and roles in relation to the implementation of a rearrangement project, and that a local government representing the competent authority that approves the establishment of the rearrangement project association owns land in the rearrangement zone, the relevant local government can be deemed to have consented to the establishment of the rearrangement project association through the disposition of authorization to establish the association (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Du138, Mar. 11, 2005; 201Du14937, May 24, 2013). In addition, if the local government, whose representative is the State or the authority designating the rearrangement zone, owns the State or public land in the rearrangement zone, through consultation procedures, etc. from the establishment of the master plan for rearrangement and designation of the rearrangement zone to the specific disposition of authorization for the establishment of the competent authority, if the local government did not explicitly express or oppose the objection to the establishment of the rearrangement project or the relevant rearrangement project association, it can be deemed that it consented to the relevant national or local government.

3) As to the instant consent rate

A) The lower court determined that, on the premise that the property management authority located within the instant rearrangement zone should calculate the number of owners of land or buildings for the State-owned and public land owned by the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs prior to the change), the Seoul Metropolitan Government-owned and the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government-owned and Gu maintenance, the number of owners of land or buildings should be determined by the property management authority. However, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that each of the above management authorities consented to the establishment of the intervenor association on the ground that there is no evidence to deem that the intervenor association

However, according to the legal principles as seen earlier, even if several parcels of state-owned land are located in the rearrangement zone, the number of land or building owners should be calculated regardless of the number of ownership. Thus, even if the property management authority of several parcels of state-owned land in the rearrangement zone respectively differs from the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, land or building owners should be deemed one state-owned land. Therefore, the number of land or building owners concerning state-owned land and public land in the rearrangement zone in this case is three State, Seoul, and the part determined otherwise by the court below

However, examining the records in light of the legal principles as seen earlier regarding the consent to establish an association of state and public land, Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the representative of which is the authority in charge of the disposition to establish the association of this case, can be deemed to have consented to the establishment of the intervenor association through the disposition to establish the association of this case. Moreover, even in the case of Seoul Metropolitan Government, which is represented by the State and the authority in charge of designating the rearrangement zone of this case, there is no circumstance that the state explicitly expressed or opposed the intervenor's objection to the promotion of the project by the

Therefore, the reasoning of the court below is somewhat inappropriate, but the conclusion that the state, Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government should be calculated as consenters for state-owned and public land is justified.

B) If the consent rate is re-calculated according to the above determination, the owner of the land or building shall be 415 persons (416 persons recognized by the original court - one person for the overlapping calculation of State-owned land), 314 persons (one person for the overlapping calculation of State-owned land recognized by the original court - 315 persons), and the consent rate shall be 75.66% (314 persons/415) and shall meet at least 3/4 of the owners of the land or building who are statutory consent rate. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall not be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the calculation of the number of owners of the land or building.

C. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to calculation of the consent rate

1) The lower court determined that: (a) Nonparty 1 owned the land in Mapo-gu Seoul (No. 2 omitted) and the (No. 2 omitted) and the (No. 2 omitted) and the building on one parcel, separately from the above co-owners, should be included in the owner of the land or building and the consenting person; and (b) the lower court determined that Nonparty 3, 4, and 5 should be excluded from the owner of the land or the building, on the ground that the “the land register, the certified copy of the building register, the land register, the land register, and the building management ledger” as provided by Article 28(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree falls under the “a person whose domicile is not indicated at the time of being registered as the owner and whose domicile is different from the present address, and whose domicile

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of the logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of the consent rate, on the following grounds: (a) the current status of ownership" in the written consent for the establishment of an association submitted by Nonparty 1 accompanied the “( Address 1 omitted)” with the “( Address 1 omitted) land” and “land( Address 2 omitted) and ( Address 2 omitted) land and building on one parcel,” which are owned solely in one written consent.

2) The Plaintiffs asserted in the grounds of appeal that Nonparty 7 who acquired a house from Nonparty 6 should include Nonparty 8 and Nonparty 9 and Nonparty 10 should include the owner of the land or building.

However, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal in this part, even if the non-party 7, 8, 9, and 10 included three owners of land or buildings, the consent rate shall be 75.11% (314 / 415 + 3) and shall meet at least 3/4 of the owners of land or buildings, which are statutory consent rate. Accordingly, this part of the ground of appeal is merely a assertion of reasons that cannot affect the conclusion of the judgment, and it is rejected without any need to further examine.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, including the portion arising from participation in the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, except for a dissenting opinion by Justice Lee In-bok and Justice Kim Shin, as to whether the State or local government consents to the establishment

4. Dissenting Opinion by Justice Lee In-bok and Justice Kim Shin

A. As a matter of principle, the law is a universal norm with the same binding force against many and unspecified persons, and the interpretation of the law is to clarify the standard meaning of such law. In interpreting the law, as far as possible, it is a principle to faithfully interpret the language and text used in the law. Furthermore, a systematic and logical interpretation method that takes into account the legislative intent and purpose of the law, the history of the enactment and amendment, the harmony with the entire legal order, and the relationship with other Acts and subordinate statutes can be adopted. However, if the text and text of the law consists of a clear concept and the clear and reasonable conclusion is derived through the interpretation of the law, no other interpretation method needs to be used in principle.

Article 16 (2) and (3) of the former Urban Improvement Act stipulate that when a promotion committee for a housing reconstruction project intends to establish an association, the consent of owners of lands, etc. shall be obtained more than a certain ratio, and Article 17 provides for the method of consent of owners of lands, etc.

In light of the overall provisions and legislative intent of the above Act, if the State or a local government did not explicitly express or oppose the opposition to the improvement project itself or the promotion of the project by a rearrangement project association, it is reasonable to interpret that the local government whose representative is the State or a person authorized to designate a rearrangement project zone or a person authorized to approve the establishment of a rearrangement project association for the implementation of a rearrangement project, is included in the number of consenters of the owners of land, etc.

However, there is no room for a different interpretation because the provisions of Article 17 of the former Act on the Method of Consent for Establishment of an Association need not be applied to a different interpretation method. Even if considering the contents and legislative intent of the former Act, the conclusion of the Majority Opinion that the State or a local government should be deemed to have consented to the establishment of an association even though it did not submit a written consent, cannot avoid criticism that it is an exceptional and arbitrary interpretation beyond the limit of statutory interpretation.

B. Article 16(2) and (3) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2407, Jul. 31, 2012) provides that when a committee of promoters of a housing reconstruction project applies for authorization to establish a housing reconstruction project, at least 3/4 of owners of land, etc. and at least 2/3 of land size shall obtain consent from the committee of promoters. Article 17(1) of the same Act provides that the method of consent shall be written consent using a seal imprint and a certificate of seal impression shall be attached thereto (Article 17(1) of the Act). Article 26(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2407, Jul. 31, 2012) provides that the consent shall include the outline of the construction of a building to be built on 1.2., and the total cost of new construction and new construction shall be allocated to the association’s.

As can be seen, the purport of requiring written consent from the owners of land, etc. to establish a reconstruction association under the former Act and requiring the administrative agency to submit such written consent at the time of applying for authorization to establish a reconstruction association is to prevent disputes among the related persons who may arise regarding the consent by clarifying the consent of the owners of land, etc. in writing, and further prevent the administrative agency from taking administrative power unnecessary to confirm whether the consent is given by examining whether the consent requirements are met only by the written consent submitted at the time of applying for authorization to establish a reconstruction association. Therefore, if the consent does not include any of the following matters or the seal impression affixed on the consent is not identical, the consent is invalid (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du5759, Nov. 14, 2013, etc.).

In light of the provisions of this Act and the attitude of judicial precedents, the consent to the establishment of a reconstruction association refers to the express consent in the statutory form, and the submission of a written consent using the seal impression is the sole evidence method and the essential form to confirm the consent of the consent holder, and the lack of such consent is not effective as the consent. As long as such consent is not submitted, interpretation deeming that the consent is obtained by means of an act or appearance that can conceal the consent, is not permissible. Therefore, even if the consent is made orally and the consent is not written, the person who did not state the legal matters, the person who submitted the consent without attaching the seal impression, and the person who did not attach the certificate of the consent, even if the consent was submitted, shall not be deemed a valid consent pursuant to the provisions of the above Act. The Majority Opinion and the same interpretation as the Majority Opinion, supra, that the consent is possible or can be seen as having been given, are unreasonable.

C. The majority opinion does not apply to the submission of the above written consent required at the time of the establishment of the association in the case of the State or a local government, but it cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

1) According to the former Act, in light of the fact that the State or a local government is granted various authority and roles concerning the formulation of a master plan for urban and residential environment rearrangement, designation of a rearrangement zone and implementation of an improvement zone, and the duty to support a rearrangement project and to cooperate in the implementation of a project for public welfare, etc., the Majority Opinion can be deemed to have consented to the establishment of a rearrangement project association if it did not explicitly express objection or oppose the rearrangement project itself or the project implementation by the relevant rearrangement project association through consultation procedures, etc. in the process from the formulation of a master plan for rearrangement and designation of a rearrangement zone to the specific disposition of authorization to establish a rearrangement

However, the establishment of a rearrangement plan and the designation of a rearrangement zone are a separate procedure that completely differs from the establishment of an association. It is logical to view that the State or a local government did not express any objection to the establishment of a rearrangement plan and the designation of a rearrangement zone, and that it consented to the establishment of an association that takes place after a considerable period of time has elapsed since the State or a local government did not express any objection to the implementation of a rearrangement project. An establishment of an association is an association law act regarding the establishment of a corporation and a consent to the establishment of an association is a matter of whether a corporation intends to become a partner, i.e., a member of the corporation. Therefore, the purpose, contents, effects, etc. of an agreement in the course of consultation on a rearrangement plan are different. Furthermore, a rearrangement project is not necessarily implemented by an association, but may directly implement it by the head of a Si/Gun, etc. or separately determine a project implementer at the stage

2) Each provision of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions (Articles 3 and 4), designation of a rearrangement zone (Articles 64 through 68), disposal of State and public property within infrastructure for rearrangement and rearrangement zone (Articles 75 and 77), and the provision on the submission and supervision of data (Articles 75 and 77) are either related to the phased procedures for the implementation of a rearrangement project and the disposal of State and public land offered for a rearrangement project, or for the smooth and appropriate implementation of a rearrangement project. Such provision differs from the normative purpose of Article 17, which is a provision on the method of consent, and therefore, it is difficult to recognize logical rationality and legitimacy that should be interpreted as the Majority Opinion as stated in Article 17, which is the provision on the method of consent.

In addition, the majority opinion is based on the fact that the implementation of a rearrangement project by a rearrangement project association is consistent with the public interest and that the State or a local government is obligated to realize the public welfare of citizens and residents. However, it is reasonable that the State or a local government is not particularly opposed to the implementation and implementation of a rearrangement project, such as a housing reconstruction project, and that it is desirable to give consent to the establishment of an association as much as possible. It is not a reason to acknowledge exceptions to the method of giving consent to the establishment of an association, i.e., the written consent stating statutory matters.

If the public interest to be achieved through the proper public interest and maintenance project with respect to the land owned by the State or local governments does not coincide with each other, there is no room to interpret the same as the majority opinion.

For example, there may be cases where a local government owns land in its own jurisdiction as well as in cases where it owns land in order to hold a training institute or resort center within the jurisdiction of another local government. In cases where another local government designates an improvement zone including the land and assumes that it implements an improvement project, it cannot be said that the local government that owns the land in the improvement zone necessarily seeks to realize the public welfare of the general public within the improvement zone, and thus, it is necessary to individually reflect the consent of the local government

It is interpreted that the provision of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, which allows the State and local governments to actively support the implementation of a rearrangement project, is interpreted to be in excess of the language and text of the Act that allows the State or local governments to give consent thereto even without submitting written consent, rather than allowing the State or local governments to give consent thereto. Even if the State or local governments did not explicitly express express objection at the stage of establishing an association, it is not because they naturally have the intention of deliberation to give consent to the establishment of an association, but can only be interpreted to the extent that the remaining

3) The Majority Opinion states that the provision on the method of written consent accompanied by a certificate of seal imprint is not applicable because the State or local government cannot have a certificate of seal imprint or a certificate of seal imprint because it is not a private person.

Unlike the adoption of the method of submitting written consent accompanied by a certificate of seal impression as a result, it is virtually impossible to verify the genuine intent of consent or the forgery of written consent in the case of owners of general land, etc., there is no problem in the case of the State or local governments. In such a case, the State or local governments are not subject to the provisions on the certificate of seal imprint, and there is room for the court to supplement the defects of such laws by interpretation, as there is no

The Supreme Court has held that, where a church that owns land or a building in an improvement zone gives consent to the establishment of an association and the implementation of a project, a resolution of the majority of the general meeting of the members shall be passed unless otherwise stipulated in the articles of association or any other rules (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du5566, Jun. 15, 2001).

Article 17 (1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas provides that consent to the establishment of an association shall be given in writing, and the consent shall be required to have a seal imprint and a certificate of seal impression as a means of verifying that the consent is the true will of the person.It is the end that it is difficult to submit a written consent stipulated by the Act because the seal imprint or a certificate of seal impression cannot be provided.

4) In this case, it is reasonable to interpret that the promotion committee promoting the establishment of an association in this case as including the state or local government in the consenters rather than making the establishment of an association unnecessary due to the lack of the consent requirements stipulated by the law. It is said that it is linked to the bottom of the majority opinion.

However, it is difficult to view that it is reasonable to allow a partnership to legally establish and implement a reconstruction project, even though it fails to meet the consent requirements prescribed by law, even though it is difficult to view that it is a concrete and reasonable resolution to resolve exceptional cases where special circumstances exist in a concrete and reasonable manner. However, allowing a single and exceptional interpretation by the name of securing concrete feasibility in the case in question is deviating from the nature and principle of statutory interpretation.

D. In interpreting the law, a judge shall ensure that the principles and goals of the law are not damaged so that citizens can take the rules of conduct as clear and that the same conditions are equally applied to the persons who have the same. Furthermore, if the text of the law itself is a clear concept and the clear and reasonable conclusion is derived through such grammatic interpretation, in principle, it is no longer necessary or limited to use other methods of interpretation. If a judge grants an exceptional and arbitrary interpretation beyond the bounds of such interpretation, it is difficult for a court to find when it comes to know of the legal principles of interpretation, and thus, it would seriously undermine the legal stability by not only seriously impairing the trust of the people in a court trial, but also failing to bring any dispute to the court (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da81035, Apr. 23, 2009, etc.).

According to Articles 16 and 17 of the former Act, where state-owned or public land exists in a rearrangement zone for implementing a housing reconstruction project, the State or local governments shall be bound to agree to establish an association with a written consent to indicate the consent. Nevertheless, the majority opinion interpret that a local government whose representative is the State or a local government has consented to the establishment of an association, barring any special circumstance such as expressing the opposite intent, etc., is included in the number of consenters of the owners of land, etc., and thus, it goes beyond the bounds of legitimate statutory interpretation. Therefore, we cannot agree with such majority opinion.

As above, we express our dissent with the Majority Opinion.

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: Omitted

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)