1. As to the assertion that the owner of the land is the trustee where the real estate was under a security trust or disposal trust

A. According to Article 2 subparagraph 9 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 10268, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), in cases of an urban environment improvement project, land owners, etc. refer to the owners of land or buildings located in the rearrangement zone or to persons with superficies thereof. According to the main sentence of Article 28 (7) of the same Act, in cases where land owners, etc. intend to implement an urban environment improvement project, the project implementation plan under Article 30 must be approved by at least 3/4 of the owners of land, etc., before applying for authorization for the implementation of the urban environment improvement project. In cases of an urban environment improvement project, the method of calculating the number of consenters of land owners, etc. shall be determined by the owner of land, including one piece of land or one piece of land, and the owner of land shall be calculated as the owner of land [one piece of land or one piece of land, and the owner of land, including one piece of land].

With regard to an urban environment rearrangement project implemented directly by the owners, such as land for which authorization for the implementation of the project has been granted under Articles 8(3) and 28(1) of the Urban Improvement Act, the disposition granting the status of the owners of land, etc. as the administrative body having the authority to implement the rearrangement project (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du1994, Jun. 13, 2013). The consent of at least 3/4 of the owners of land, etc. within the rearrangement zone for the project implementation plan prepared by the owners of land, etc. who intend to directly implement the urban environment rearrangement project is a procedural requirement for such interpretation disposition.

In addition, as seen earlier, Article 28(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the calculation of the number of consenters including the previous owners of land or buildings acquired for the purpose of an urban environment improvement project after designating a rearrangement zone is intended to prevent unreasonable results due to the decrease in the number of consenters, such as land, etc. who intend to implement an urban environment improvement project actively purchased land or buildings prior to filing an application for authorization for the implementation of an urban environment improvement project. Ultimately, in the case of an urban environment improvement project, there is difference between the owners of land, etc. who should obtain consent from the owners of land, etc.

In addition, the purport of allowing landowners, etc. to implement an urban environment improvement project, and requiring owners of land, etc. to obtain consent is to promote the project and reflect the opinions of interested parties as well. Therefore, in a case where the owners of land, etc., who have a direct interest in the implementation of an urban environment improvement project or in the implementation of such project trust real estate as a party having a direct interest in the implementation of an urban environment improvement project, the implementation of the project is consistent with the purpose of trust. Rather, real estate trust functions as a means for the implementation of an urban environment improvement project, which is promoted by the owners of land, etc., as well as the procedures for the implementation of an urban environment improvement project and the consent of owners of land, etc., it is reasonable to ensure that the truster, etc., the owner of the previous land, etc., who has a direct interest in the exercise of ownership, etc

Meanwhile, the trust property under the Trust Act is entirely and externally owned by the trustee, and its ownership is not reserved to the truster in the internal and external relationship with the truster (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du27998, Jan. 24, 2013). However, the former Trust Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10924, Jul. 25, 201) provides that the trustee shall manage the trust property separately from the trustee’s proprietary property, and the trustee shall separately prescribe the rights and obligations of the trust property separately from the trustee’s proprietary property, regardless of whose name the trust property is owned by the trustee (Article 30). Thus, even if the trust property belongs to the trustee’s ownership, the relationship of rights and obligations cannot be treated equally as the trustee’s proprietary property.

In full view of the legal nature and purpose of owners of land, etc. as stipulated in the Urban Improvement Act, the meaning and legislative purport of the proviso of Article 28(1)1(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act, the peculiarity of real estate trust for the implementation of an urban environment improvement project, and the legal relationship as to trust property, etc., it cannot be said that the consent of owners of land, etc. is the same as the general judicial relationship in relation to the qualification of owners of land, etc. as the project implementer, which is the requirement for disposition of project implementation authorization in the urban environment improvement project, and the project implementation plan for the implementation of an urban environment improvement project. Therefore, in cases where a security trust or disposal trust, etc. is made for the implementation of an urban environment improvement project or for the implementation of a project, it is reasonable to interpret the owners of land, etc. as the project implementer as stipulated in Article 28(7) of the Urban Improvement Act and the owner of land, etc. who is required to obtain consent necessary for an

B. Review of the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court, the evidence duly admitted, and the record reveals the following facts.

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

(2) Under Article 8(3) of the Urban Improvement Act, the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) prepared a project implementation plan with himself/herself as the project implementer as the owner of land, etc. in the instant rearrangement project zone, and filed an application for authorization with the Defendant on December 29, 2009 (hereinafter “instant application for authorization”).

(3) On April 8, 2010, the Defendant issued an authorization for project implementation under Article 28(1) of the Urban Improvement Act (hereinafter “instant authorization for project implementation”) to the intervenors, and determined that the consent rate of the owners of the land, etc., including the land, was 80.30% (53 persons in number of consenters ± 66 persons in number of landowners, etc.) and that the consent rate was satisfied under Article 28(7) of the Urban Improvement Act.

(4) On January 13, 201, the Intervenor approved the management and disposal plan by the Defendant on January 13, 201 following the procedure for application for parcelling-out, and the above management and disposal plan was publicly notified, and the Plaintiff was the landowner, etc. in the instant rearrangement project zone, but the Plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out, and

(5) (A) In order to implement an urban environment rearrangement project, the Intervenor purchased each real estate owned by 19 major real estate (hereinafter “influent real estate”) and Nonparty 1 and other 31 (hereinafter “parties 1 and 31”) at the time of the original adjudication from September 2006 to December 2006, and entered into a real estate management and disposal trust contract with a new bank (hereinafter “new bank”) with the owner of the relevant land, etc., and completed the registration of ownership transfer due to trust in the future of the new bank.

(B) As to the real estate issue among the above purchased real estate, the intervenor paid all remainder to the owner of the land, etc. before December 29, 2009, which is the date of the application for authorization of this case, and completed the registration of ownership transfer due to sale in the name of the intervenor, and completed the registration of ownership transfer due to a new bank pursuant to the real estate security trust agreement concluded with the new bank.

(C) Furthermore, with respect to each real estate of the disputing parties, the intervenor paid the balance to the disputing parties during the period from December 29, 2009 to April 25, 201, which is the date of the application for authorization of this case, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the intervenor, and completed the registration of ownership transfer due to a trust in accordance with the real estate security trust agreement entered into with the new bank or Korea Trust (hereinafter “Korea Trust”) with the new bank or Korea Trust (hereinafter “Korea Trust”), and again, registered the ownership transfer due to a trust in accordance with the real estate security trust agreement with the new bank or Korea Trust.

(D) The Intervenor entered into a management-type land trust agreement with Korea Trust around July 2012, and obtained authorization for the implementation of the project from the Defendant on September 18, 2012, changing the project implementer from the Intervenor to the Korea Trust.

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the following is determined.

(1) At the time of the application for authorization of this case, the intervenor acquired ownership on the key real estate purchased to implement an urban environment improvement project, and subsequently intended to implement the project or conducted a collateral trust with the new bank. Therefore, the landowner’s owner of the land, etc. to implement an urban environment improvement project as prescribed by Article 28(7) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents may be deemed not a new bank as the trustee, but a truster, not a truster. Therefore, the intervenor’s qualification

(2) Under the proviso of Article 28(1)1(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act, with respect to the land or structures acquired by the Intervenor for a rearrangement project after the designation of the said rearrangement project zone, the previous owners shall be included in the number of landowners, such as the land.

However, at the time of the designation of the rearrangement project zone in this case on July 24, 2008, it can be known that all of the disputing parties at the time of the designation of the rearrangement project zone in this case sold real estate owned by them to the intervenors and completed disposal trust to the Intervenor or to the new bank in this connection. As to the above real estate, it is reasonable to see that the Intervenor acquired the ownership of the above real estate by the filing date of the application for the authorization of this case, without any need to decide whether the Intervenor acquired the ownership of the land by the filing date of the application for the authorization of this case, the landowner of the land, etc.

Therefore, it is legitimate that the defendant calculated the consent rate by including the previous owner of the land in the number of landowners and consenters, not the intervenor or the new bank regarding the above real estate.

D. In the same judgment of the court below, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of land owners, etc., the project implementer, and the calculation of the number of consenters, such as land that should obtain consent, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

2. As to the assertion regarding the quorum for consent

The lower court, based on its reasoning cited the judgment of the first instance court, determined that the consent rate at the time of authorization for the project implementation of the instant case is 79.1% [53 persons in number of consenters ¡À67 persons in number of landowners, including land (66 persons recognized by the Defendant + 1)], which exceeds the statutory consent rate stipulated in Article 28(7) of the Urban Improvement Act.

The quorum for consent to authorization for project implementation under the Urban Improvement Act shall be determined at the time of application for authorization (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du21437, Apr. 24, 2014). Examining the consent rate based on the time of application for authorization of this case, the number of landowners, etc. is 67 persons, and the number of consenters is 52 persons (excluding Nonparty 21 who submitted the consent after the application for authorization of this case among 53 persons recognized by the original court), and the consent rate is 77.61% (52/67 persons) and meets at least 3/4 of the owners of land, etc., which is the legal consent rate.

Therefore, the reasoning of the court below's decision on this part is just in its conclusion that the court below found the land owner to meet at least 3/4 of the legal consent requirements, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the base date of the land owner and the calculation of consent rate.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from this case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, including the portion arising from the participation in the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)