[주택개량재개발조합관리처분계획인가처분취소][하집1989(2),511]
(a) Whether or not to seek a revocation of the approval of the management and disposal plan on the grounds that the resolution of redevelopment association on the management and disposal plan under Article 41 of the Urban Redevelopment Act is defective
(b) Defects in the resolution of appointment of redevelopment partnership head and the validity of authorization on the management and disposal plan requested by him;
A. The approval of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor on the management and disposal plan stipulated in Article 41 of the Urban Redevelopment Act is a supplementary administrative act that completes the effectiveness of the management and disposal plan that is resolved by the redevelopment partner, and even if such approval exists, if there is a defect in the above resolution on the management and disposal plan, such plan cannot be effective, and its approval cannot be effective, so if the above resolution becomes null and void, the confirmation shall be sought through civil litigation, and the revocation of the approval shall not be claimed on the grounds of
B. In light of the provisions of Article 41 of the Urban Redevelopment Act and the nature of authorization, the authorization of the management and disposal plan is premised on the application of the redevelopment association, which is the project executor, but the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the competent authority of the above authorization, does not have the obligation to actually examine the qualification of the head of the redevelopment association, who is the applicant, and therefore, if the non-party A was registered in the register of the head of the redevelopment association at the time of the above application for authorization, the above authorization was defective in the resolution of appointment of the head of the redevelopment association, and even if the resolution is
Articles 23 and 41 of the Urban Redevelopment Act
Senior Salary and 3 others
Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
On March 18, 1988, the approval of the housing improvement redevelopment partnership management and disposal plan in Zone 1 of Zone 4 set-off by the defendant shall be revoked.
Judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant
In full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 3, No. 4, and No. 6-1, each statement in the statement No. 3, No. 4, and No. 6-1, which does not dispute the establishment, the Housing Redevelopment Association (hereinafter referred to as the Redevelopment Association) was established on Nov. 17, 1986 for the execution of the redevelopment project on No. 41,607 square meters of the above land, which was designated as the housing improvement redevelopment redevelopment zone as the housing improvement redevelopment zone No. 512, Nov. 2, 1985, which was newly established by the Defendant on Nov. 17, 1986, as to the land of No. 1,524 of the above land, No. 827 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City announced on the same day, and that there was an establishment and disposition of the redevelopment association's establishment and project implementation approval as the redevelopment association's construction of the above 15th floor under the Housing Redevelopment Association Act.
First, according to Article 23 (3) of the Urban Redevelopment Act, Article 24 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and Article 28 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the redevelopment association shall adopt a resolution to delegate matters concerning the management and disposal plan to the representative general meeting of the association members held in the third place in Dobong-gu Seoul, Seoul, on September 22, 1987, even though the resolution on the management and disposal plan is the exclusive right of the general meeting of the association members. The resolution was in violation of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, and was not issued a notice of convening the general meeting within the statutory period. The above resolution was not issued to some association members including the plaintiff, etc., and it was not an incomplete number of votes, which did not reach the quorum for opening the general meeting and the quorum, and thus, the above resolution on the management and disposal plan should be null and void. Second, since the above resolution on the redevelopment company's establishment of the redevelopment association should not be a large amount of money from the above company, and the defendant shall also be deemed to have been delegated to the above resolution on the execution of the apartment company and the above construction contract.
Therefore, even if the plaintiffs' resolution on the management and disposal plan of this case is invalid, the above disposal and disposal plan of Article 41 of the Urban Redevelopment Act is a supplementary administrative act that satisfies the legal effect of the management and disposal plan of Article 41 of the same Act, even if there is a defect in the above disposal and disposal plan (basic act). Thus, the above disposal and disposal plan can not be valid if the above disposal and disposal plan's resolution is invalid as alleged by the plaintiffs (in addition, the above disposal and disposal plan's defect in its resolution is not cured) and the above disposal and disposal plan's order cannot be asserted as invalid because the plaintiff's above disposal and disposal plan's non-party company and redevelopment association's non-party company's non-party company and redevelopment association's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's claim for nullification of the general meeting's resolution, and the above disposal and disposal plan's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party's non-party's claim for cancellation of this case's right can be asserted.
Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims in this case are dismissed without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Jeong Man-Ma (Presiding Judge) Kim Yong-ju