부작위위법확인
1. All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits against the defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be incidental to the participation.
1. Basic facts
A. On May 22, 2008, the Mayor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City publicly notified the designation of the JAB promotion zone as K-ro Seoul Special Metropolitan City public notification.
(hereinafter referred to as the "JB promotion zone of this case". (b)
The Intervenor joining the Defendants (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is the Housing Redevelopment Development Project Association established for the purpose of implementing a housing redevelopment project by designating the size of 78,755.20 square meters in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City L-gu as a project implementation district (hereinafter “instant project district”) in the instant renewal promotion zone.
The Plaintiffs are those who owned land, buildings, etc. within the instant business zone.
C. An intervenor obtained authorization to establish an association from the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “head of Eunpyeong-gu”) on July 28, 2009.
On December 11, 2014, the intervenor received the application for parcelling-out from the members of the association from December 31, 2014 to March 20, 2015 after obtaining authorization to implement the project from the head of Eunpyeong-gu.
E. On May 31, 2016, the head of the Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City requested the head of Eunpyeong-gu Office to notify the area subject to ex officio cancellation of designation of the rearrangement zone under Article 4-3(2) of the former Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (amended by Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance No. 6407, Jan. 5, 2017; hereinafter “former Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments”).
Accordingly, on June 9, 2016, the head of Eunpyeong-gu sent a reply that the renewal promotion zone of this case (77.07% of the estimated cost rate) was located in the area where the estimated cost rate is less than 80% to the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, and that the intervenor respondeded to the above contents to the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor.
F. On June 23, 2016, the head of the Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City”) held an ex officio review meeting of experts on cancellation of the rearrangement zone and held a fact-finding survey conducted around September 2013 regarding the ex officio cancellation of the renewal acceleration zone.