1. As to the claim to nullify the invalidity of this case

A. In light of the legislative intent of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, which introduces the promotion committee system to smoothly implement the rearrangement project and prohibits multiple promotion committees within one rearrangement zone, and the ripple effect of the organization approval disposition of the promotion committee on many interested parties, the approval disposition cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course on the premise that a certain rearrangement zone is designated differently from a rearrangement zone, after the organization approval disposition of the promotion committee is taken on the premise of a certain rearrangement zone. It is difficult for the promotion committee to continue to implement the rearrangement project in a new rearrangement zone, only if it is deemed impossible to achieve the purpose of the promotion committee, considering the following as a whole: the location and size of the rearrangement zone and the rearrangement zone, comparison of the owners of land, etc. and the number of consenterss; details and degree of the improvement

B. The court below acknowledged the following facts in full view of the admitted evidence.

① On June 25, 2004, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City publicly announced the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Master Plan with the content that he/she designates the area of 808 square meters large and 120,192.15 square meters as a new forest maintenance project zone (hereinafter “instant improvement project zone”) pursuant to Article 3 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 7335, Mar. 18, 2005) as a new forest maintenance project zone.

② On June 25, 2004, on the ground that a majority of owners of lands, etc. of the instant zone scheduled to be rearranged consented to the composition of a promotion committee for the establishment of a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association regarding the instant zone scheduled to be rearranged, the Defendant approved the composition of the promotion committee for the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “participating”) (hereinafter “instant approval disposition”).

③ On December 16, 2005, pursuant to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Balanced Regional Development Support, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor designated and publicly announced the area of 1514,00 square meters, including the zone scheduled to be rearranged, as the new forest New Town.

④ On October 19, 2006, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor re-designated and publicly announced a new forest New Town as an urban renewal acceleration district pursuant to a special Act for the promotion of urban renewal, but on April 10, 2008, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor determined and publicly announced an urban renewal acceleration plan concerning the new forest renewal acceleration district on April 10, 208, and included the details of implementing a housing redevelopment project by designating the new forest 80,729 square meters and the new forest 6-dong 808, Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City as a new forest renewal promotion district (hereinafter “instant renewal promotion district”).

⑤ Meanwhile, at the time of the instant approval and disposition, 685 owners of land, etc. were lawful within the instant renewal acceleration zone, and at the time of designation and public notice of the instant renewal acceleration zone, 1,411 owners of land, etc. were owners of land within the instant renewal acceleration zone.

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant’s project zone scheduled at the time of the instant approval disposition and later the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor’s designation and announcement of the instant renewal promotion zone was considerably changed, and accordingly, the project zone area is approximately 89%, and the number of legitimate owners of lands, etc. is deemed to have increased by approximately 106%, but such fact is merely an extension of the construction site centering on the instant rearrangement promotion zone for the implementation of the housing redevelopment project in a wide and systematic and efficient manner in accordance with the special law for the promotion of urban renewal. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Intervenor’s promotion committee is able to perform its business by undergoing the approval procedure for modification.

D. Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise on the grounds indicated in its reasoning that the Intervenor’s promotion committee cannot be deemed as the promotion committee whose business area covers the instant renewal promotion zone, and rather, as the instant renewal promotion zone was replaced by the designation and public notice of the instant renewal promotion zone without identity, lost the legal status of the association establishment promotion committee, and at the same time, invalidated the instant approval disposition that approved the Intervenor’s organization. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the invalidation of the approval disposition of the promotion committee composition, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor’s promotion committee pointing this out is with merit.

2. As to the revocation of the return disposition of this case

The lower court acknowledged that the Plaintiff applied to the Defendant for the issuance of a written consent that was granted a serial number pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, which was amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 157 on August 13, 2009, in order to establish the redevelopment improvement project promotion committee for the instant renewal promotion zone, and that the Defendant rejected the said application on the ground that the Intervenor had already obtained the approval of the composition for the instant renewal promotion zone, and determined that the return of the instant case was unlawful on the different premise as long as

However, Article 13(1)1 of the former Special Act on the Promotion of Urban Renewal (amended by Act No. 10761, May 30, 201) provides that where urban renewal acceleration plans are determined and publicly announced, the designation or alteration of a rearrangement zone under Article 4 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents shall be deemed to exist, and since the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents prohibits multiple promotion committees within one rearrangement zone from being constituted. Thus, as seen earlier, insofar as the instant approval disposition on the intervenor of the promotion committee whose project area covers considerable part of the renewal acceleration zone is a project area is a project area, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant erred in the instant rejection disposition.

Therefore, on a different premise, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the principle of one promotion committee within one improvement zone, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendant’s ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)