[2] Whether the above disposition is void as a matter of course, where the project implementation authorization and its announcement, management and disposal plan and its announcement are unlawful

[3] Whether the revocation of the disposition of expropriation of land can be claimed on the ground of illegality such as the disposition of changes in the execution of redevelopment project

[2] Even if the project implementation authorization and its notification, management and disposal plan and its notification are unlawful, such defect is not a reason to nullify the above disposition.

[3] The illegality of the disposition on authorization for change of execution of redevelopment project must be disputed at the stage of change of execution, etc., and the revocation of the disposition on expropriation of land cannot be claimed on the ground of such illegality, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the pertinent disposition on authorization is null and void automatically at the stage of adjudication on expropriation where the period of litigation has already lapsed.

On the first ground for appeal

According to the records, it is evident that the defendant's attorney at the court below has been duly delegated the power of attorney from the chairperson representing the defendant.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

On the third ground for appeal

Article 13 of the Urban Redevelopment Act applies to cases where a landowner becomes an implementer of an urban redevelopment project and implements a redevelopment project, and the above provision is not applied to cases where a redevelopment cooperative becomes a project implementer and implements a redevelopment project (Article 17(2) of the Urban Redevelopment Act).

Therefore, the fact that the Minister of Construction and Transportation did not designate and publicly notify the period of application for the approval for the implementation of the redevelopment project with respect to the housing improvement redevelopment project of the area 1 of this case, which was the implementer of the Non-party 1 Housing Improvement Development Cooperative (hereinafter referred to as the "Non-party 1 Cooperative") is not invalid. Therefore, the decision of the court below is justified in its conclusion that the approval for the implementation of the redevelopment project for the non-party 1 Cooperative is not somewhat insufficient or inappropriate, but it is not invalid.

There is no reason to discuss.

On the fourth ground

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government was not legally re-entrusted with the authority of the head of the Gu on the project implementation authorization, management and disposal plan, and each notice under the Urban Redevelopment Act, the court below rejected the plaintiff's allegation that the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government re-endorses the authority of the head of the Gu with the authority delegated by the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority which is superior to the regulations stipulated in Article 4 of the Regulations on the Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority, and thus the disposition of the head of the Gu, such as the change authorization of the implementation of the redevelopment project of this case, its notification, management and disposal plan and its notification, etc., which were conducted by the head of the Gu of Seodaemun-gu is unlawful. Therefore, the court below rejected the plaintiff's allegation that the expropriation ruling and its ruling should also be null and void or revoked due to the Urban Redevelopment Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Redevelopment Act, even though there is no provision on the authorization of the implementation of the urban redevelopment project, the management and disposal plan, etc.

However, since the affairs concerning the authorization for the change of the implementation of an urban redevelopment project, the management and disposal plan, and each notice are delegated to the head of a local government as the state affairs, the Mayor/Do Governor cannot re-entrust them to the head of a local government pursuant to the ordinances of the local government. Since it is possible for the head of a local government to re-endorse them pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Government Organization Act and Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority based thereon, the above determination by the court below is erroneous.

However, even if the authorization for the alteration of the urban redevelopment project of this case, the announcement thereof, the authorization for the management and disposal plan, and the notification thereof, which were made by the head of Seodaemun-gu for the above reasons, are illegal, these defects are not the grounds for invalidation of the above disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu4615 delivered on July 11, 1995). Further, the illegality of the authorization for the alteration of the execution of redevelopment project should be disputed at the stage of the implementation authorization, etc., and the cancellation of the land expropriation decision cannot be claimed for the reason of the illegality in the stage of the adjudication for expropriation where the period of litigation already lapsed, unless there are special circumstances that make it difficult to view the authorization disposition, etc. as invalid as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu584 delivered on December 11, 1992, 92Nu16287 delivered on March 9, 1993).

Therefore, the court below's determination that the ground as asserted by the plaintiff does not constitute grounds for invalidation or revocation of the adjudication on expropriation of the land of this case and its objection, is justifiable as a result, so the above error of the court below is not an error affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

On the fifth ground

In light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the decision of the court below as to the point of appeal is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as argued in the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, the illegality of the administrative disposition plan itself should be disputed at the stage of the administrative disposition plan, and it is not possible to seek cancellation of the administrative disposition plan for expropriation on the ground of its illegality, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the administrative disposition for expropriation is null and void automatically at the stage of the administrative disposition plan for which the period of litigation has already lapsed. Thus, even if there is an error as alleged by the plaintiff in the administrative disposition plan for this case, it cannot be viewed as a ground for dispute over the administrative disposition plan for expropriation and its validity of the administrative disposition

There is no reason for this issue.

On the 11th ground

In light of the provisions of Articles 1, 9, 17, and 14 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, the legislative purpose of Article 38(2) of the Urban Redevelopment Act, which provides that a redevelopment cooperative which has obtained authorization for the implementation of an urban redevelopment project shall expropriate land, etc. of a person other than those who have filed an application for parcelling-out or desire to parcel out to the redevelopment cooperative under the provisions of Article 29 of the Urban Planning Act, is derived from the legislative purpose of the Urban Redevelopment Act, which aims to contribute to the sound development of the city and the promotion of public welfare by promoting the efficient progress of the redevelopment project implemented by the redevelopment cooperative as the developer, and its contents are extremely unreasonable or contrary to equity. Thus, the above provision cannot be said to be a provision of unconstitutionality contrary to the provisions of Article 23(3) of the Constitution or Article 11 of the

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

As to the remaining grounds of appeal

In light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as to the point of points out of the theory of lawsuit is justified, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles due to violation of the rules of evidence, or violation of the reasoning, as alleged in

All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)