Considering the public interest and collective nature of the rearrangement project as above and the need to protect legal stability by maintaining the legal relationship already formed in accordance with the public notice of transfer, it is reasonable to interpret that there is no legal interest in seeking revocation or nullification of the adjudication of expropriation or objection made for the relevant rearrangement project after the public notice of transfer takes effect.

A. According to Articles 54(1) and (2) and 55(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), a project implementer who implements a housing redevelopment project shall, without delay, notify the purchaser of the matters determined by the management and disposal plan after undergoing a site confirmation survey and division procedure of land, and transfer the ownership of the site or building to the head of the relevant Si/Gun after publicly announcing the details thereof in the official report of the relevant local government. In such cases, the purchaser of the site or building acquires the ownership of the site or building on the date following the announcement date. In such cases, the rights registered as superficies, etc. established on the previous land or building and the right of lease satisfying the requirements under Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act are deemed to have been established on the site or building to which the ownership of the site or building was transferred. The ownership of the site or building becomes final and conclusive on the basis of the new legal relationship. It cannot be said that the entire management and disposal plan should be established and publicly announced to the majority of the association members, etc.

Considering the public interest and collective nature of the rearrangement project as above and the need to protect legal stability by maintaining the legal relationship already formed in accordance with the public notice of transfer, it is reasonable to interpret that there is no legal interest in seeking revocation or nullification of the adjudication of expropriation or objection made for the relevant rearrangement project after the public notice of transfer takes effect.

B. According to the records and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, ① the plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter "the plaintiff") is co-owners of the land of this case located within the area of the project of this case, which is a housing redevelopment project under the Urban Improvement Act, and the housing redevelopment project association of the defendant New-ro Zone Five Housing Redevelopment Cooperatives (hereinafter "the defendant association") was authorized by the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu on December 26, 2002, and ② the plaintiffs filed an application for parcelling-out with the defendant association within the period of application for parcelling-out within the project execution plan, but did not conclude a contract for parcelling-out. The plaintiffs did not enter into a contract for parcelling-out. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21900, Dec. 30, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 22348, Sep. 17, 2010; Presidential Decree No. 23568, Sep. 21, 2010>

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since the Defendant’s association came into effect after the instant acceptance ruling and the instant objection ruling and the Defendant’s association announced the transfer of the instant business, the Plaintiffs are deemed to have no legal interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity and revocation of the instant acceptance ruling and objection judgment.

D. Nevertheless, the court below held that the plaintiffs' claim to nullify the invalidity of the adjudication of acceptance of this case and the claim to revoke the adjudication of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to legal interests after the transfer public notice became effective. However, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claim to nullify the invalidity of the adjudication of this case and the claim to revoke the adjudication of this case, but all of this part of the lawsuits were dismissed. The conclusion is legitimate, and it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and it does not constitute an error of law

2. Judgment on the ground of appeal as to the Appointer Company A and B’s decision to accept the instant case and the claim to nullify the invalidity of the said decision (the main claim) and the claim for revocation (the preliminary claim)

The lower court determined that the instant expropriation ruling and the instant objection ruling were unlawful on the ground that only subjected to the Plaintiffs’ co-ownership share on the instant land, and did not regard the instant superficies of AB as subject to its expropriation, and that the instant expropriation ruling and the instant objection ruling were unlawful.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical

3. Determination on the grounds of appeal as to the claim for expropriation compensation

A. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ claim for the increase in the amount of compensation for confinement, additional dues, and delay damages against the Defendant Union. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds

B. The court below held that this part of the lawsuit against the defendant cooperative, a project implementer, cannot claim compensation for expropriation since it did not have the adjudication procedure on the part of the claim for expropriation compensation of the Appointer AB and 4. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of facts beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or in the misapprehension of relevant legal principles (the plaintiffs are erroneous in the judgment of the court below that the superficies of this case is a superficies for the purpose of security. However, the above assertion is about the court below's as to the assumptive and additional judgment, and as long as the court below's judgment that deemed this part of the lawsuit to be unlawful on the above grounds, the propriety of the above family and additional judgment cannot affect the judgment, and thus

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part of the plaintiffs' claim for nullification and revocation of the plaintiffs' acceptance ruling of this case is reversed. Since this part of the case is sufficient for the Supreme Court to directly render a judgment, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this part is revoked, and this part of the lawsuit is dismissed. The remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are all dismissed. The costs incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant Central Land Tribunal, the defendant association, the costs incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant association, and the total costs incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City are borne by the plaintiffs and the designated parties. It is so decided as per

[Attachment] List of Appointeds: Omitted

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)