[2] Where a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association obtains consent from the owners of a land, etc. to obtain a new authorization for change of an association while a lawsuit seeking confirmation of nullity of the previous disposition of authorization for establishment is pending, whether the person who lost ownership due to the subsequent disposition of authorization for establishment is included in the owners of land, etc. subject to consent

[2] In order to obtain consent from the owners of land, etc. to obtain a new authorization for change of an association under the circumstance that a lawsuit seeking confirmation of nullity or revocation of the previous disposition of authorization for establishment of a housing redevelopment project is pending, etc., the owners of land, etc. who lost ownership due to the subsequent act even if the previous disposition of authorization for establishment becomes invalid or revoked after the previous disposition of authorization for establishment, shall not be deemed to be included in the owners of land, etc. subject to consent for new

1. As to the assertion that the instant disposition lacks procedural requirements as a new association establishment authorization disposition

According to Article 14(3) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”) and Article 22-2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24007, Jul. 31, 2012; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Act”), the committee for promotion of housing redevelopment projects shall hold an inaugural general meeting for establishing an association after obtaining consent from the owners of land, etc. under Article 16(1) of the former Act, etc. under Article 16(5) of the former Act, Article 26(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24007, Jul. 31, 2012).

In light of the contents and purport of these provisions, in a case where a dispute over the illegality or validity of the previous disposition of approving the establishment of a partnership arises, and an association obtains consent from its owner based on a written consent containing statutory matters, etc., and thereby obtains authorization for the establishment of a partnership, the authorization for the establishment of a partnership shall be deemed to meet the requirements for the new disposition of approving the establishment of a partnership, barring any special circumstance, such as making a resolution on the confirmation of the articles of association and appointment of partnership officers before the application for authorization for the establishment of a partnership, etc. In this case, the decision-making of a new general meeting shall meet the procedural requirements, such as making a resolution on ratification of the resolution of the inaugural general meeting made before the application for authorization for establishment of a partnership or making

According to the records, the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) obtained new consent necessary for filing an application for authorization for the second establishment of the association from its members prior to the instant secondary disposition for authorization for the establishment of the association (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On May 11, 201, immediately before filing an application for authorization for the second establishment of the association, he/she held a general meeting of union members on May 11, 201 and resolved to amend the articles of association and appoint new union executives. In light of the circumstances where the validity of the first establishment of the association was disputed in a lawsuit, the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) obtained consent from its members with a new written consent, and then decided to amend the articles of association after holding a general meeting and holding a resolution for the second establishment of the association. In light of the above, the instant disposition satisfies procedural requirements as a new authorization for

The court below is justified in its reasoning’s conclusion rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition cannot be deemed a new disposition for approving the establishment of an association since it did not go through the procedures for the Intervenor’s inaugural general meeting for approving the establishment of an association. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the legal nature of the instant disposition and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the assertion that consent necessary for the establishment of the association was not obtained

A. Claim on the validity of acquisition of real estate through an invalid disposition to establish an association

According to the records, the intervenor did not obtain the consent of the owner of the land, etc. for the instant disposition, and did not obtain the consent from the owner of the land, etc. after the first disposition of authorization for the establishment of the association and the first disposition of authorization for the establishment of the association, but at the time, the first disposition of authorization for the establishment of the association was in progress for the invalidation of the first disposition of authorization for the establishment of the association, and the first disposition of authorization for the establishment of the association. As such, in order to obtain the new disposition of authorization for the establishment of the association without the confirmation of illegality or validity of the previous disposition of authorization for the establishment of the association, even if the previous disposition becomes null and void or cancelled after the authorization for the establishment of the association, the land owner, etc. who lost ownership due to the subsequent disposition of the land, etc. shall not be deemed as the landowner, etc.

Therefore, we affirm the conclusion of the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the land owner should be included in calculation, even if the ownership was lost due to the first disposition of approving the establishment of the association and subsequent actions of approving the establishment of the first association. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of the association and the acquisition by consultation, etc.

(b) Any other assertion.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the court below rejected all other Plaintiff’s claims regarding the calculation of the consent rate, including that the management authority of state-owned and public land in the rearrangement zone did not submit written consent, and should exclude the owner from the consent, based on its stated reasoning. The intervenor’s second application for the authorization of the establishment of the association satisfies at least 3/4 of the owners of the land, etc., the statutory consent rate, and thus the defendant’s disposition of this case is legitimate. In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of consent rate necessary for the establishment of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Selections: Omitted

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)