2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

A. The Mayor of Seoul Metropolitan Government, on July 24, 2008, determined the improvement plan for the urban environment improvement project and designated it as the rearrangement project zone for the land of 10,544.9 square meters (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project zone”) outside Mapo-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) and 71 lots (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project zone”).

B. Under Article 8(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “the Intervenor”), the Intervenor prepared a project implementation plan with himself as the project implementer under the qualification of the owner of the land, etc. in the instant rearrangement project zone, and filed an application for authorization (hereinafter “application for authorization of this case”) with the Defendant on December 29, 2009.

C. On April 8, 2010, the Defendant calculated an intervenor’s project implementation authorization under Article 28(1) of the Urban Improvement Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and calculated the consent rate of the owner of the land, etc. as 80.30% (53 persons in number of consenters ¡À66 persons in number of landowners, etc.) and met the consent rate under Article 28(7) of the Urban Improvement Act.

D. On January 13, 201, after undergoing the procedure for application for parcelling-out, the Intervenor obtained authorization of the management and disposal plan from the Defendant, and the said management and disposal plan was publicly notified. The Plaintiff was the landowner within the instant improvement project zone, but did not apply for parcelling-out, and the Plaintiff’s decision of expropriation was completed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul 1 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is a defect in the calculation of the consent rate for the following reasons, which leads to a significant and obvious degree of the defect. Thus, the instant disposition is null and void as a matter of course.

1) The Intervenor filed the instant application for authorization based on the status of the owner of the land, etc. of the real estate 19 weeks (hereinafter “instant real estate”). However, at the time of the said application for authorization, the Intervenor completed the registration of ownership transfer based on trust with respect to the said real estate to a new bank, a real estate trust company (hereinafter “new bank”). As such, only the new bank is qualified as the owner of the land, etc., and the Intervenor cannot be deemed as having been qualified as the owner of the land, etc. Therefore, the instant disposition was erroneous by granting the project implementation right to an unqualified

2) The Defendant calculated the consent ratio by including the number of owners of land, etc. and the number of consenters (hereinafter “parties 1 and 2) who agreed to the instant project implementation plan. However, their real estate held by them from September 2006 to November 1, 2006, prior to the designation of the instant project implementation plan, lost their ownership by completing the registration of ownership transfer due to trust to a new bank, which is a trust company. Since the new bank was the owner of the above real estate until the time of the application for the authorization of this case, they cannot be deemed the owner of the above real estate, and these 31 persons cannot be deemed the owner of the land, etc. who can exercise their right to consent. Accordingly, once again calculated the consent ratio, they cannot be deemed to be the owner of the land, etc. who can exercise their right to consent.

3) Even if the Intervenor’s purchase of real estate in advance from the key consenters and can be seen as the actual owner of the land, so long as such purchase was conducted prior to the designation of the instant rearrangement project zone, the real estate held by the key consenters falls under the real estate acquired by the Intervenor, who is the owner of the land, for the purpose of the rearrangement project before the designation of the rearrangement zone, and thus, the number of consenters in interpretation of the proviso to Article 28(1)1(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22277, Jul. 15, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be deemed as one participant. Accordingly, if the consent ratio is

4) Although the Defendant calculated Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 7-ju 5 as one owner of land, etc., the Defendant should be calculated as two owners of land, since the owner of land and the building are different from the owner of the building.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Intervenor began to purchase each of the real estate and the key owners of the real estate from September 2006. From September 2006 to December 2, 2006, each owner of the land, etc. entered into a trust agreement with the new bank and had each owner of the land, etc. complete the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of trust with the new bank. Accordingly, as of July 24, 2008 where the instant rearrangement project zone was designated, the external owner of the said real estate was the new bank, and the truster under the trust agreement with the new bank was the owner of the land, etc.

2) On December 29, 2009, the date of the application for authorization of this case, the intervenor paid all remainder to the owners of the land, etc. at issue, and received the registration of ownership transfer for sale and purchase from the new bank under their own name, and simultaneously conducted the registration of ownership transfer for a new bank based on a real estate security trust agreement with the new bank on the same day to obtain a PF loan from the new bank on the same day.

3) Meanwhile, the intervenor did not complete the registration of ownership transfer for each real estate of the key consenters by the date of the application for authorization of this case. However, the intervenor paid the balance to the key consenters from December 29, 2009 to April 25, 201, and received the registration of ownership transfer under his/her name at the same time, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for a new bank based on the trust agreement with the new bank on the same day.

4) Upon the termination of the real estate security trust agreement with the new bank, the intervenor entered into the instant rearrangement project zone with Korea Korea Trust Co., Ltd. and concluded a real estate security trust agreement with the said company on August 4, 2010, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of trust with the said company.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 4, 8 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 3 through 7, and 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Determination of owners of land, etc. when real estate is trusted

The trust under the Trust Act requires a trustee to manage and dispose of a property right for the purpose of trust by transferring a specific property right to a trustee or disposing of it. As such, in the case of a real estate trust, if the ownership transfer is completed in the future, the trustee is entirely transferred to the trustee, the trust company, which is the trustee, is the owner in the private law. On the other hand, Article 2 Subparag. 9(a) of the Urban Improvement Act defines the owner of a land or building located in a rearrangement zone as the owner of a land or building, and does not have any provision as to how the owner of a land, etc. will deal with the owner of a real estate when the real estate is entrusted. However, in full view of the following circumstances, even if the real estate is registered in the name of a trust company on the registry, it shall be deemed that the “owner of a land, etc.” as referred to in Article 28(7) of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 28(

(1) On the other hand, Article 28 of the Urban Improvement Act requires the consent of the owners of lands, etc. above a certain ratio in an urban improvement project and the consent of the owners of lands, etc. who have a direct interest in the urban improvement project is to reflect the opinions of the owners of lands, etc. who have a direct interest in the urban improvement project. In light of the purport of such provision, even if the owners of lands, etc. have entrusted the land to a trust company, it is reasonable to determine the number of the owners of lands, etc. who have a direct interest in the rearrangement project and finally reverted to the benefits and expenses of the rearrangement project. Such handling is limited to the internal decision-making of an organization as seen above, even if the owners of lands, etc.

② If a trust company, which is a trustee, is deemed to be the owner of a plot of land, etc., assuming that a number of owners of a plot of land, etc. entrusted real estate with the same trust company, the trust company is obligated to manage real estate according to the truster’s intent pursuant to the trust contract with the owner of a plot of land, etc., which is the truster. If there is a different intent to consent to the implementation of the rearrangement project among many owners of land, etc., the trust company, which exercises only

③ If it is assumed that the mortgaged trust company is deemed as the owner of land, etc., and the project implementer of the urban environment rearrangement project is determined as the above trust company, the truster shall repay all obligations under the collateral trust contract to the truster, and if the name of the owner on the register is returned to the truster, and the collateral trust company loses its ownership on the register, it is difficult to deem that the collateral trust company is the entity capable of stably performing the urban rearrangement project.

④ According to Article 30 Subparag. 9 of the Urban Improvement Act, matters to be attached to the project implementation plan shall be delegated to the Presidential Decree, etc., and Article 41(2)13 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulates as one example of the regulations established and operated by the owners of land, etc. as one of them. Barring any special circumstance, the inside of such organization shall be deemed valid, except where it is considerably unfair in light of social concept, such as a violation of good morals and other social order, or where the decision procedure is deemed to be considerably unfair, or where the decision procedure is deemed to be considerably in violation of justice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da29026, Nov. 24, 192). In relation to the urban environment rearrangement project of this case, the intervenor enacted the regulations for the urban environment rearrangement project of this case. In particular, in consideration of the fact that a collateral trust is made to raise funds for the rearrangement project of this case, Article 11 subparag. 6 of the above regulations clearly state the qualifications of the above regulations.

2) As to the Plaintiff’s first argument

As seen above, the intervenor completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on trust at the same time with respect to the real estate at issue by December 29, 2009, which is the date of the application for authorization of this case. As of the above date of application for authorization, the land owner, etc. shall be deemed not the new bank, which is the trustee, but the truster, the truster. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the intervenor is not the land owner, etc., is without merit.

3) As to the plaintiff's second and third argument

As seen above in the facts of recognition, the key parties hold the status of a truster of the trust contract with the new bank as the date of the application for authorization of this case, and thus, they are entitled to consent to the project implementation plan of this case: Provided, That in the case of Nos. 5 through 8, 12, 14, 15, 26, and 29, the registration of transfer of ownership was made under the intervenor's name on December 29, 2009, which is the date of the application for authorization of this case, and the registration of transfer of ownership was made under the new bank's name under the security trust contract with the new bank, so this part is deemed to be the owner of land, etc., one participant as the truster of this case. However, the above real estate falls under the land or building acquired after the designation of the rearrangement zone by the participant as the owner of land, etc. under the proviso of Article 28 (1) 1 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act, and thus, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's land owner and the previous owner's consent were not acceptable.

4) As to the plaintiff's fourth argument

According to Article 28(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, the consent of the owner of a plot of land, etc. is to be calculated as the owner of a plot of land, one representative of the number of the owners of a plot of land or one building if one person owns a lot of land or a number of buildings, regardless of the number of parcels of land or buildings. In light of the contents and structure of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it is reasonable to view that one person should be calculated as the owner of a plot of land, etc. in cases where the parcel of land or the owner of land or a building and the co-owner are different (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du15852, Jan. 14, 2010).

According to this case’s return, Nonparty 6 owned two parcels of land in Mapo-gu ( Address omitted) and (number 6 omitted), and Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 7 shared one half of each of the above above-ground buildings (see, e.g., No. 1/2 per annum of the owner of the above-ground buildings). In accordance with such legal doctrine, since the owner of the above land and the owner of the above-ground buildings are different, it is reasonable to calculate the number of owners of the above land as two persons by adding one owner of the above-ground land and one co-owner of the above-ground building, and adding one owner of the above-ground building to two persons. Therefore, if the number of owners of the above land is added from the formula of consent calculated by the Defendant (53±66) in addition, the consent rate is 79.1% (53±67), and the standard rate is set continuously.

5) Sub-committee

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition is void as a matter of course is lawful. Thus, without any further determination, is without merit ( even if it is assumed that the instant disposition is less than the consent ratio by deeming the land owner as the trustee, the trustee, the Defendant’s deeming the truster as the owner of the land, etc. is based on the inquiry reply to the Ministry of Construction and Transportation (see subparagraph 12 (B)) and its defect cannot be deemed evident. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit even if it is any mother).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Judge)

1) From the present status of consent (Evidence A) of the owners of lands, etc., the number 8, 11, 21, 22, 24, 31, 33, 34, 36, 42, 43, 45, 47, 51 through 53, 56, 59, 64.

Note 2) see the ownership status of Nonparty 1, Nonparty 1, etc.

3) 31 deductions from the number of consenters.

4) To deduct 30 persons from the number of the owners of land, etc. (to recognize one person as the owners of land, etc.).

5) From No. 4, see No. 1 per annum of the owner of land, etc.

Note 6), however, that land 384-30 was owned by the trustor himself (see, e.g., No. 22 per year of the owners of lands, etc., evidence No. 4)

Note 7) The Intervenor paid and acquired this part of the land from December 29, 2009 to April 25, 2011, which was after July 24, 2008, where the instant rearrangement project zone was designated.

8) Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 7 did not submit all written consent.