2. On May 24, 2010, the Defendant’s disposition of modifying the establishment of an association against the Intervenor joining the Defendant is revoked.

3. Upon a claim added at the trial, the Defendant’s disposition of approving the establishment of an association against the Intervenor joining the Defendant on December 11, 2009 shall be revoked.

4. Of the total litigation cost, the part incurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is borne by the Defendant, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant, respectively.

A. On May 24, 2010, the Defendant’s disposition of changing the establishment of an association against the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is revoked.

B. The Defendant’s disposition of approving the establishment of an association against the Intervenor on December 11, 2009 is revoked (in the first instance, added).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition revoking the authorization for change of the establishment made against the intervenor on May 24, 2010.

A. On August 23, 2007, the Seoul Metropolitan Government, as the Seoul Metropolitan Government Notice No. 2007-280 on August 23, 2007, designated the number of 16,139 square meters as the housing reconstruction improvement zone (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”). Accordingly, the residents in the instant improvement zone constituted the “Fungdong (number 1 omitted) Housing Reconstruction Improvement Project Establishment Promotion Committee” and obtained approval for establishment from the Defendant on January 15, 2008, and obtained consent for the establishment of the housing reconstruction improvement project association from the owners of land and buildings in the instant improvement zone.

B. The above association establishment promotion committee filed an application with the Defendant for authorization to establish an association with the consent of 97 landowners (including Nonparty 1; hereinafter “first consent”) among the total number of 11 landowners, 7 building owners, 137 housing and 119 landowners in the instant rearrangement zone. On December 11, 2009, the Defendant calculated 126 remaining 126 persons, excluding 11 landowners, as the total number of consenters (excluding Nonparty 1) and approved the establishment of an intervenor with 94 members (hereinafter “instant authorization disposition”).

C. Afterwards, the intervenor obtained ten copies of the written consent for the establishment of the association, including Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3, and additionally filed an application for the authorization for the establishment of the association with the number of consenters [excluding Nonparty 1 (excluding Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3)] from 96 to 104, and the number of partners was changed from 94 to 102. The defendant calculated 126 persons except 11 landowners on May 24, 2010 as the total number of consenters, and calculated 104 of them as consent (hereinafter “instant authorization for the establishment of the association”). Thus, the intervenor changed the number of consenters (excluding Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3) from 96 to 104 (excluding Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3).

D. Meanwhile, in the rearrangement zone of this case, the land owner in the rearrangement zone of this case is 11, 7 building owners, 119 housing owners and 13 owners. In the rearrangement zone of this case, Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government owns the land of 13 lots outside the Hongdong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government (number 2 omitted), the land of 11 lots outside the same (number 3 omitted), and the land of 11 lots outside the same (number 3 omitted), and the Ministry of Construction and Transportation owns the land of this case (number 4 omitted).

D. The Plaintiffs are co-owners of the land and its ground buildings in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (number 5 omitted), which is located within the instant improvement zone.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap’s 1, 2, 3, 4, Gap’s 5-1, 2, Eul’s 1, Eul’s 3-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) An error in calculating the quorum for consent

A) Article 16(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Do Residents Act”) provides that “the consent of at least 3/4 of the owners of land or buildings shall be interpreted as requiring the consent of at least 3/4 of all the owners, including not only the owners of the land or buildings, but also the owners of only one of the land or buildings.” The Defendant excluded 11 landowners and calculated the total number of consenters only 126 persons.

B) In addition, Nonparty 4 among the consenters submitted the written consent of each owner of Hong-dong (number 6 omitted), (number 201 and 401 of 2nd floor. Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 6 were co-owners of the land of Hong-dong (number 7 omitted) and its ground and the land of Hong-dong (number 8 omitted), and Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 5 submitted the written consent in duplicate. Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 5 submitted the written consent in 102 if the two overlapping persons were excluded from the total number of 104 persons, and in that case, the consent rate was 74.45% (number 102/137) and did not meet the consent rate stipulated in Article 16(3) of the Do also.

2) Defect in the written consent

A) Examining the written consent submitted by the Intervenor to the Defendant when filing an application for the modification of the instant authorization, the written consent received from 58 persons, including Nonparty 7, etc. prior to that on January 23, 2009 and the written consent drafted from 46 persons, including Nonparty 8, etc. thereafter are different. Since all the members bear the same rights and obligations, the consent of the owners of lands, etc. regarding the establishment of the reconstruction association should be the same content as the consent of the owners of lands, etc., but the instant disposition was unlawful as it was based on different forms and contents

B) In addition, the instant written consent, without de facto stipulating the details of the members’ apportionment, shall be governed by the articles of association or the management and disposal plan, or the cost shall be fairly borne by the general sales revenue and the members’ contributions, and it cannot be deemed that the matters regarding the cost sharing for the consent to the establishment of the Housing Reconstruction Association are specifically stated by clearly stating only the cost sharing for the consent to the establishment of the Housing Reconstruction Association, and it is unlawful in omitting the estimated amount of the cost of removal, stating only the “including the necessary cost of new construction” as to the necessary cost

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the establishment authorization disposition of this case is legitimate

A) Whether the quorum for consent has been satisfied

(1) Article 16(3) of the Do Government Act provides that the committee for promotion of housing reconstruction projects intends to establish an association. Article 16(3) of the Do Government Act provides that if an area which is not a housing complex is included in a rearrangement zone, at least 3/4 of the owners of land or buildings within the area which is not a housing complex and at least 2/3 of the land size shall obtain authorization from the head of a Si/Gun with the consent of owners of land. Article 16(1) of the Do Government Act provides that the committee for promotion of housing redevelopment projects and urban environment rearrangement projects shall obtain consent of at least 3/4 of the owners of land, etc. in order to obtain authorization for the establishment of the association, but Article 16(3) of the Do Government Act provides that one of the owners of land or buildings shall not be deemed the owners of land, etc., but shall not be deemed the owners of land or buildings, at least 3/4 of which the committee for promotion of housing reconstruction projects and urban environment rearrangement projects shall be deemed the owners of land or buildings, and shall not be subject to consent.

Examining the facts found in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the consenting authority to establish an intervenor in the rearrangement zone of this case shall consist of 11 landowners, 7 building owners, 119 owners of buildings and land, 119 owners, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, and the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. Since the consent originally submitted by the intervenor for the authorization of this case was 97 owners (including non-party 1 to land owners), the consent rate is 71.42% (i.e., 100/140 and number of consenters, 71.42% (including the above Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City, and the Ministry of Construction and Transportation) for the establishment of the intervenor, and thus, the consent to establish the association of this case did not meet the quorum. Since the consent to establish the association is a requirement for the authorization of establishment, the authorization of this case was unlawful, deeming the consent to meet the quorum even if it did not meet the quorum.

Article 16(3) of the Do Affairs Act provides that the defendant shall include five persons, including the non-party 1, from among the land owners, in calculating the consent rate. However, the fact that the land owners, other than the non-party 1, consented to the establishment of the intervenor at the time of the disposition of the authorization of the establishment of this case, among the land owners in the rearrangement zone of this case, the non-party 3-2 of the evidence No. 3-2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Even if the land owners agreed as the defendant's assertion, the consent rate is 74.28% (=104/140) and it does not meet the "agreement" requirement under Article 16(3) of the Do Affairs Act. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Where it is deemed that the consent is not granted to a person with the authority to consent of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Ministry of Construction and Transportation included in the main sentence, the consent is given by five landowners (1) if the consent is given by 101/137 104/140 (73.72%) (74.28%) (7/137 10.08%) (71.42%) if the consent is given by one landowner.

Note 1) In the case

B) Whether defects in the quorum have been cured

(1) The defendant and the intervenor met the requirement of "not less than 3/4 of the owner of the land or building" because the defendant obtained the consent of 107 persons with the right to consent (including Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3 of the land owner) from the 137 persons with the right to consent, including Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3, after the approval of the establishment of the case. Since the approval of the establishment of the case was issued on May 24, 2010, the defendant claimed that the lack of the quorum was corrected due to the lack of consent at the time of the approval of the establishment of the case.

The issue of whether an administrative disposition was unlawful in the administrative litigation shall be determined on the basis of the law and factual state at the time of the administrative disposition. The remedy of defects in the defective administrative act shall not be permitted in principle from the perspective of the nature of the administrative act or the rule of law. exceptionally, if a person avoiding the repetition of an administrative act and allowing it for the legal stability of the parties, it shall be recognized on the basis of specific circumstances within the extent not infringing upon the rights or interests of the people (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du10684, Jul. 9, 2002). The establishment authorization disposition prescribed in Article 16(1) of the Do administration law has the nature of the right of establishment. The housing reconstruction project has a significant impact on the rights of the owners of the land in the rearrangement zone of this case, and even if the housing reconstruction project of this case recognizes the defects, it cannot be concluded that the land owners, including the plaintiffs, do not incur any losses, even if the establishment approval revocation procedure of this case newly takes effect, it cannot be deemed that the intervenor did not meet the requirements for establishment establishment approval.

In regard to this, even if there is a defect in obtaining the authorization of establishment without meeting the quorum for establishing the association by following the Supreme Court Decision 2009Da63380 Decided July 15, 2010, the defendant asserts that the deficiency was cured at that time if the insufficient quorum is small, and if the quorum is satisfied with additional consent within a considerable period of time, the defect was cured. However, the above decision of the Supreme Court is the case that "it obtains the additional consent within 20 days after obtaining the authorization of establishment without meeting a certain quorum of 1.25% and obtains the new authorization of establishment before filing the lawsuit," and it is not appropriate to apply the case of this case where the person who consented to the establishment of the intervenor at the time of the instant authorization of establishment was merely 100 persons among 140 persons (including Nonparty 1, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the Ministry of Construction and Transportation) from 3.58% (75% -71.42%) (including the case of this case) and the revocation of the authorization of establishment.

Article 27(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Do Government Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22829, Apr. 4, 2011) provides that an administrative agency’s disposition of approving the establishment of a redevelopment association shall be construed as an administrative agency’s disposition that grants a status as an administrative body to a housing redevelopment project promotion committee when meeting the specific requirements under the law. Article 16(1) of the Do Government Act requires modification of the contents of the authorization for establishment of a housing redevelopment project to undergo the same requirements and procedures as the disposition of approving the establishment. However, even if an administrative agency issued a disposition in the form of authorization for modification of the establishment of an association with respect to minor matters under each subparagraph of Article 27 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Do Government Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22829, Apr. 4, 2011), the nature of the disposition shall be deemed as merely accepting a report of modification of the insignificant matters, apart from the original disposition of approving the establishment of an association (see Supreme Court Decision 505Du59459, Dec. 2059, 20105).

On the other hand, in the reconstruction improvement project, only the sectional owners who have agreed to establish a new association and were not members of the first association because they did not agree to establish an association later, the additional consent refers to a new member of the association, which is merely a modification of minor matters stipulated in Article 27 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Do Government Act, and thus, the change of this case on the ground of the additional consent is merely a modification of minor matters, and thus, the change of this case on the ground of the additional consent is merely a receipt of a report on the change of minor matters on the ground of the

C) Sub-determination

Therefore, the disposition of this case was erroneous in failing to meet the quorum at the time of the intervenor's establishment, and its defect is not cured. Thus, the plaintiff's other assertion about this part is not necessary to be examined further, and the disposition of this case's establishment authorization is illegal.

2) Whether the authorization of modification of the instant case was lawful

A) Examining the above facts in light of the aforementioned 2-C(1)(B) and the legal principle of Gininin, the instant modification disposition is merely a modification of the consent rate based on the submission of an additional written consent without changing other parts among the matters originally authorized at the time of authorization of establishment, and it is merely a modification of minor matters as stipulated in Article 27 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Do Affairs Act, and thus, the instant modification disposition on the ground thereof by the Defendant is merely a modification of minor matters as stipulated in Article 27 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Do Affairs Act, and thus, it cannot be deemed a new authorization disposition separate from the instant authorization disposition.

B) Therefore, the authorization of modification of the instant case is premised on the existence of the initial authorization of establishment. As seen earlier, as long as the authorization of establishment of the instant case is revoked unlawfully, the authorization of modification of the instant case should be revoked illegally.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case, including the claim added in the trial, shall be accepted in all of its reasoning. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the authorization of this case shall be revoked, and the authorization of this case shall also be revoked upon the claim added in the trial. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

On the same day as judge Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)

1) As seen earlier, there is no evidence that a landowner other than Nonparty 1 consented to the establishment of an intervenor among 11 landowners at the time of the instant authorization for establishment.