조합설립변경인가처분 취소
1. On March 7, 2016, among the instant lawsuits, the part of the claim filed against the Intervenor joining the Defendant for the revocation of the authorization for the establishment of an association.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff used the instant commercial building as the owner of the second floor, 201, 202, 203, 303, 4, and 5 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) among the second commercial buildings of Seocho-dong apartment located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seocho-gu (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and its site ownership (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
B. The Intervenor’s Establishment Promotion Committee has given consent to the instant apartment and the first commercial building owners to the extent that they meet the consent requirements for the establishment of the association, but did not obtain consent to the extent that they meet the consent requirements due to the Plaintiff’s opposition, etc. from the second commercial building owners.
The scope of the project is reduced to the apartment of this case and the first commercial building in order to promote the project, and the second commercial building owners filed a lawsuit for partition of co-owned property (Seoul Central District Court 2015Gahap505309, hereinafter “instant co-owned property partition lawsuit”).
C. On April 10, 2015, the Intervenor was issued a disposition to authorize the establishment of the instant apartment reconstruction project (hereinafter “the instant project”) for the purpose of implementing the instant apartment housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant project”), excluding the secondary commercial buildings, with the business area located in Seocho-gu Seoul and 56,917 square meters (hereinafter “instant zone”).
On October 22, 2015, the Defendant made a decision on the modification of the maintenance plan (minor matters) and the announcement of topographic drawings to the extent that the business area is 5,256 square meters by excluding the secondary commercial buildings in the reconstruction project.
(Public Notice of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government No. 2015-127).
The intervenor did not reach an agreement on the entrance and road establishment of apartment buildings in the lawsuit of partition of co-owned property between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and obtained the additional consent of 19 owners of the first commercial building, and decided to include the second commercial building again in the business area of the project of the case, and the defendant.