(a) Legal nature of the administrative agency’s approval or disposition of management and disposal plan under Article 41 of the Urban Redevelopment Act;

B. Whether revocation and nullification of the approval disposition of the management and disposal plan can be claimed on the grounds of defects in the management and disposal plan

(a) The authorization of the administrative agency under Article 41 of the Urban Redevelopment Act is a supplementary act to complete the legal effect of the management and disposal plan of the housing improvement and redevelopment partnership, and where there exists a defect in the management and disposal plan which forms the basis thereof, it shall not be deemed that the management and disposal plan, the basic act, even though

B. If a management and disposition plan, which is a basic act, has a defect only in the authorization disposition itself, valid and complementary act, the invalidity or revocation of the authorization disposition can be asserted, but if there is no defect in the authorization disposition, it cannot be said that there is a legal interest in filing a lawsuit to nullify or nullify the authorization disposition by an administrative agency on the ground that there is no defect in the basic act, separate from the defect in the basic act.

(a)Article 41 (a) of the Urban Redevelopment Act; Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act [General]; Article 19 and Article 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

(a) Supreme Court Decision 86Nu152 delivered on August 18, 1987 (Gong1987, 1472) (Gong1557 delivered on June 14, 1991). Supreme Court Decision 92Nu15482 delivered on April 23, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1576)

Plaintiff 1, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Attorney Park Sang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu10905 delivered on September 24, 1993

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The approval of the Defendant administrative agency under Article 41 of the Urban Redevelopment Act is a supplement to complete the legal effect of the management and disposal plan of the Housing Redevelopment Cooperatives, and where there exists a defect in the basic management and disposal plan, even if there exists a defect in the basic act, the management and disposal plan, which is a basic act, shall not be deemed valid. However, if there exists a defect in the basic act itself, which is a lawful and effective and complementary act, it can be asserted the invalidation or cancellation of the approval disposition. However, if there is no defect in the basic act, even if there is no defect in the basic act, it shall not be deemed that there is a legal interest in filing a lawsuit to revoke or nullify the approval disposition of the Defendant administrative agency, on the ground that the basic act is null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu15482, Apr. 23, 1993; 7Nu38, Aug. 23, 1977). The reasoning of the court below is without merit in its conclusion that there is no legitimate interest in the grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)