재결무효확인의소
1. All appeals by the plaintiff (appointed party) are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as follows, and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of the plaintiff as to the plaintiff's assertion, such as Paragraph (2) above, and Paragraph (3) is the same as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article
2. The parts used in the height of the first instance judgment from No. 17 to No. 12 shall be the same as “the foregoing part” below.
【The Defendant Cooperative, the developer of the redevelopment project, has the right to expropriate the land according to the procedure stipulated in the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and the Land Compensation Act. Thus, even if there is any defect in the management and disposal plan after the authorization for the implementation of the redevelopment project, it is not immediately arbitable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu5584, Dec. 11, 1992). As seen earlier, as long as the second project implementation plan, etc. of this case, which served as the basis for the ruling on the acceptance of this case by the Defendant Commission, cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course because the defect is so serious that the adjudication on expropriation of this case cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without any justifiable reason.
3. Additional determination
A. As to each of the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff, etc., the Defendant Union had already rendered a ruling of acceptance by the Defendant Committee. Accordingly, as long as the Defendant Union completed the deposit of compensation, the ownership of each of the instant real estate is legally transferred to the Defendant Union, and the Plaintiff et al. cannot be deemed the owner of each of the instant real estate. Therefore, there is no legal interest in dispute over the invalidity of the instant second and third project implementation plan and the second management and disposition plan.