Plaintiff (Appointed Party) (Attorney Kim Dong-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Law Firm Love, Attorney Hong Young-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na14466 delivered on May 2, 201

April 14, 2011

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap13838 decided August 12, 2010

1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The appeal cost (including the portion arising from supplementary participation) shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of authorization for establishment of a partnership for maintenance and improvement projects for a village-based apartment building promotion committee established on December 28, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why the court should explain this case are as follows: "The purpose of use: establishment of a union, articles of association, and approval of a project plan)" shall be added to "written consent of the fourth 7th of the judgment of the court of first instance", and all part of paragraph (2) of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (the part concerning the 4th 14th 14 to 5th 21th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deleted (the intervenor joining the court

2. Additional matters to be determined

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since the association was established by a resolution of the residents' general meeting on November 8, 2008 and the promotion committee disappeareds, it is unlawful for the promotion committee to file a claim for land division. Therefore, the disposition of this case, which received the application for authorization of this case on the premise of the claim for land division, is unlawful.

(2) In the case of determining the separation of commercial buildings and claiming the division of land accordingly, the scope of implementation of the rearrangement project is reduced. Thus, in order for the promotion committee to request the determination of separation of commercial buildings and the division of land, the instant disposition that received the application for authorization of this case based on the land division claim without such consent, based on the written consent from the majority of the owners of land, etc. or 2/3 or more of the owners of land, etc. who agreed to the composition of the promotion committee pursuant to Articles 14(4), 17(1), and 23(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Do Act, is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) Judgment on the assertion that the promotion committee ceased to exist

Article 18 (2) of the Do Government Act provides that "a cooperative shall be established upon registration at the seat of its principal office within 30 days from the date on which the establishment of the association is authorized, and Article 41 (1) and (3) of the Do Government Act provides that a promotion committee shall file a claim for division of land with the court. In full view of the facts recognized as above and the purport of the whole pleadings as stated in Gap evidence and Eul evidence No. 9, the defendant joining the defendant can be recognized that the establishment was registered on January 11, 2010 after obtaining authorization from the defendant on December 28, 2009 with the establishment of the association. Thus, the defendant joining the defendant shall be established at the time of the establishment registration, and the promotion committee shall not be deemed extinguished until the date on which the establishment is registered. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion on a different premise is without merit.

(2) Determination on the assertion that consent of more than 2/3 of the owners of land, etc. or the owners of land, etc. consenting to organizing the promotion committee is necessary

Article 14(4) of the Do Government Act provides that "where the details of duties performed by the promotion committee pursuant to paragraph (1) are accompanied by the expenses of the owners of land, etc. or cause changes in rights and obligations, matters prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be subject to the consent of the owners of land, etc. above the ratio prescribed by Presidential Decree before performing such duties." Article 23(1) of the Do Government Act provides that "where the promotion committee intends to expand or reduce the scope of implementation of a rearrangement project pursuant to Article 14(4) of the Act, the promotion committee shall obtain the consent of the owners of land, etc. who have consented to the composition of the majority of the owners of land, etc. or the promotion committee, at least 2/3 of the owners of land, etc. who have consented to the establishment of the promotion committee." However, as seen earlier, the size of the portion among the rearrangement zone in this case is 20,712.05 square meters and the number of the owners of land, excluding 109,55.05 square meters of land, 38000 square meters,200.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List of Appointed]

Judges Cho Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)