관리처분계획취소
1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the head of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is revoked, and the plaintiffs are accused.
1. Of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, “1. Basic Facts” and “2. Determination as to the claim against the Defendant Union” are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 11 to 13 the last day of the judgment of the court of first instance), and thus, they shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. We examine the legitimacy of the lawsuit against the head of the Gu, ex officio, as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit against the head of the Gu.
The approval of the administrative agency under Article 48 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas is a supplement to complete the legal effect of the management and disposal plan of the project implementer, and there was a defect in the basic management and disposal plan.
Even if the management and disposal plan, which is the basic act, cannot be deemed to be valid, but if the basic act is lawful and there is a defect only in the approval disposition, which is a supplementary act, the invalidity or revocation of the approval disposition can be asserted, but if there is no defect in the approval disposition, there is a defect in the basic act.
Even if there is a separate dispute over the defect of the basic act, it cannot be said that there is a legal interest to seek the invalidity or revocation of the approval disposition by the defendant administrative agency on the ground of the defect of the basic act.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7541 Decided December 11, 2001, Supreme Court Decision 2009Du4913 Decided December 9, 201, Supreme Court Decision 2010Du4913 Decided December 9, 201, Supreme Court Decision 2010Du1248 Decided December 9, 201, etc.). In the instant case, without claiming any defects in the instant disposition disposition itself, the Plaintiffs filed a claim for the revocation of the instant disposition of management and disposition, which is a supplementary act, by asserting the substantive and procedural defects in the instant disposition disposition itself, as seen earlier, and filing a claim for the revocation of the instant disposition of management and disposition, which is a basic act, along with the revocation of the instant disposition of