2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, shall be borne by the Plaintiffs.

On September 28, 2010, the defendant revoked the approval of the establishment of a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association as to the first district housing redevelopment and consolidation project association's establishment committee.

The reasoning for this Court concerning this case is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts, and thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 4

In the case of the first instance court's decision, the first instance court's 11th to 17th of the same face are as follows.

㈎ 소외 5, 2, 3의 동의서

① In addition to the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 16, 16, 2, and 3 and the fact-finding results with respect to non-party 6 of the first instance trial, it is recognized that the following facts are recognized, and that some of the evidence Nos. 14, 17, 18, and 38 are contrary thereto are not believed:

The result of the appraisal by Nonparty 6 of the first instance trial on Nonparty 5’s written consent of Nonparty 5 is that “In the comparative inspection with each seal imprint, it is difficult to find out the difference between Nonparty 5’s seal imprint and the seal imprint as a result of observing different points in terms of the characteristics mark of main line, size of letters, space between letters, margin, the intersection, eroding, and lighting characteristics of seal angles, etc.” In accordance with Nonparty 5’s fact confirmation (BB), “I are residing in China. I seem to affix a seal similar to the seal imprint at the time of the preparation of the written consent, even if I have affixed the seal imprint upon the request of the mother at the time of the preparation of the consent. I will actively agree with redevelopment. I will also affix the seal imprint at now.” On the other hand, it is difficult to find the difference between Nonparty 5’s seal imprint and the seal imprint stamp affixed on the written consent.

The result of Nonparty 6’s appraisal of Nonparty 2’s written consent of the court of first instance on the written consent of Nonparty 2 is that “The stamp image affixed under the name of Nonparty 2’s written consent from each prosecutor of the respective stamp image division is difficult to be compared to the destruction of distinctive features from the framework of the personal seal imprinted due to excessive circulation.” According to Nonparty 2’s factual confirmation (No. 2), the written consent of the council for the maintenance and improvement of a house redevelopment project of 1st unit housing unit shall be written, and after attaching a certificate of personal seal impression, the seal imprint was affixed. As a result of confirmation of a copy of the existing written consent, it is the same as the one’s personal seal impression and the pen.”

㉢ 소외 3의 동의서에 대한 제1심 감정인 소외 6의 감정결과는, “각 인영과의 비교검사에서 청점성 특징표시와 같이 인곽(테두리), 인장 마모, 접합부, 인획의 조각특징, 곡선획 등에서 인획의 공통된 특징이 관찰되어, 동일 인장의 인영으로 사료된다.”는 취지이고, 제1심의 감정인 소외 6에 대한 사실조회결과 동의서에 날인된 도장의 인영과 소외 3의 인감도장의 인영이 상이해 보이는 부분은 “소외 3의 인감증명서 상의 ‘열’자의 ‘リ’(전서)에서와 같이 인획이 구성될 수 없으며 인주의 접착상태 등에서 발생한 변화로 보인다.”는 것이다.

② The purport of requiring the written consent of the owners of land and the submission of such written consent to the competent administrative agency when applying for authorization to establish a redevelopment association under the former Act is to prevent disputes among related persons who may arise with respect to the consent by clarifying the consent of the owners of land, etc., and further, require an administrative agency to examine whether the consent requirements are met only by the written consent submitted at the time of applying for authorization to establish a redevelopment association. Therefore, the administrative agency, upon receipt of the application for authorization to establish a redevelopment association, should first examine the consent of the owners of land, etc., which is the requirement for authorization to establish a redevelopment association, including the land of which the legal matters of each subparagraph of Article 26(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act are included in the written consent, and, with respect to the authenticity of the consent of the development association, it should be examined on the basis of whether the seal affixed on the written consent and the seal imprint of the certificate are identical (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du1483, Nov. 10, 2011).

③ According to the above facts, it is recognized that the seal imprint and the seal imprint affixed on the written consent of Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 are the same, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the other seal imprint are the written consent.

나아가 위 사실관계와 법리에 비추어 소외 5의 동의서가 유효한지 여부에 관하여 살핀다. ㉠ 서면에 의한 동의를 요구하는 취지는, 서면에 의하여 토지 등 소유자의 동의 여부를 명확하게 함으로써 동의 여부에 관하여 발생할 수 있는 관련자들 사이의 분쟁을 미연에 방지하고 나아가 행정청으로 하여금 재개발조합설립인가신청 시에 제출된 동의서에 의하여서만 동의요건의 충족 여부를 심사하도록 함으로써 동의 여부의 확인에 불필요하게 행정력이 소모되는 것을 막기 위한 것이어서, 동의의 진정성에 관하여는 그 동의서에 날인된 인영과 인감증명서의 인영이 동일한 것인지를 기준으로 각 심사하여야 하는 점, ㉡ 이에 따라 피고는 동의서에 날인된 인영과 인감증명서의 인영을 육안으로 확인하여 상이한 인영이 있는 경우에는 보완 또는 반려하였는데 소외 5의 동의서에서는 인영의 상이점을 발견하지 못한 점, ㉢ 소외 5의 동의서에 날인된 도장의 인영과 인감도장의 인영은 육안으로 관찰하였을 때는 차이점을 발견하기 힘든 점, ㉣ 소외 5는 동의서 작성 당시부터 계속 진정한 동의의사를 표시한 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 사후에 전문적인 감정인의 감정결과 인영이 상이한 것으로 밝혀졌다고 하더라도, 피고가 육안으로 면밀하게 검토한 결과 인감증명서의 인영과 동일한 것으로 판단하여 이 사건 처분을 하였고, 소외 5가 인감도장 날인과정에서 유사한 인장을 착오로 잘못 사용하였지만 그 동의의사가 진정한 경우에는, 피고가 소외 5의 동의서를 무효로 처리하지 않았다고 하여 피고의 이 사건 처분에 위법이 있다고 할 수 없다.

In addition, the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's 16th to 16th of the same page.

㈒ 소결론

As seen earlier, all of the plaintiffs' arguments relating to the requirements for consent to establish an association are without merit, and all of the written consent confirmed by the defendant at the time of the disposition in this case is valid, so 227 owners of land, etc. consent, 302 owners of land, etc. and met the requirements for consent at the rate of 75.17% (if 22 owners of land, etc., such as withdrawal of consent excluded from the calculation of the number of consenters, are included in the number of consenters, the consent rate in the disposition in this case is 82

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just and without merit, and it is so dismissed as per Disposition.

Judges Sung Pung-tae (Presiding Judge)