(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.12.16. 선고 2015누43829 판결

A. The primary purport of the claim is to confirm that the Defendant’s public notice of the application for parcelling-out in October, 2014 is invalid.

B. First preliminary claim: The Defendant’s notice of application for parcelling-out on October 22, 2014 shall be revoked.

C. 2 Preliminary Claim: A summary of the Defendant’s charges to the owners of land, etc. on October 22, 2014, and the notification of application for parcelling-out is invalid.

D. 3 Preliminary Claim: The Defendant’s summary of the charges to the owners of land, etc. on October 22, 2014 and the notification of application for parcelling-out shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part concerning the primary claim and the preliminary claim in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The same shall apply to the above 1-A, (b) and (b).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the part of the lawsuit in this case concerning the primary claim and the preliminary claim are legitimate

A. On October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the public announcement of the application for parcelling-out (hereinafter referred to as the “public announcement of the application for parcelling-out”) on October 22, 2014 by the Defendant did not provide information on the details of the estimated charges under Article 46(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”), and sought confirmation of the primary invalidation of the public announcement of the above application for parcelling-out, and sought preliminary cancellation. Specifically, it points out that the public announcement of the above application for parcelling-out did not provide the basis for calculating the appraised amount, and that it did not reasonably notify each owner of land, etc.

B. The disposition of an administrative agency, which is the subject of an appeal litigation, refers to, in principle, an act of an administrative agency under public law, which is an act directly related to the rights and obligations of the people, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations with respect to a specific matter, or directly generating other legal effects. Thus, an act that does not directly affect the legal status of the other party or related persons does not constitute such act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu6889, Aug

C. A housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association under the Urban Improvement Act is a special administrative body with at least special purpose of existence in legal relations with its members, and is in a relationship with rights and obligations under the public law to the extent that it can be deemed that it is performing specific public affairs which are its existence purpose under the supervision of the State. Thus, in a case where there is a dispute over the contents of a management and disposal plan determined after the application for parcelling-out, the management and disposal plan constitutes an administrative disposition that has a specific and conclusive influence on the owners of land, etc., and thus, constitutes a disposition conducted by the association, and thus, can seek confirmation or revocation thereof by means of appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Da31235, Feb. 15, 1996; Supreme Court Decision 2001Du6333, Dec. 10, 2002). In other words, a management and disposal plan constitutes an administrative disposition that determines the matters concerning the reversion of rights of various facilities, including a site established as a result of the implementation of a project (see, e.

Meanwhile, Article 46(1) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that a project implementer shall publicly announce matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the details of a site or structure subject to sale after the date of the public announcement of authorization for project implementation, in a daily newspaper published in the relevant area. One of the procedural steps leading to a management and disposal plan, it constitutes a measure to notify the owners of land, etc. of whether a site or construction facility is sold within the project implementation period, whether an application for parcelling-out is not applied for parcelling-out, or whether a project implementer has a right to claim settlement money substituted for the status of members by withdrawing the application for parcelling-out, and it does not directly result

According to this, the part of the lawsuit of this case concerning the main claim and the first preliminary claim is not a disposition of an administrative agency subject to appeal litigation, but a claim for confirmation or revocation of the public notice of the application for parcelling-out of this case, and is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da15488, Apr. 2, 2009). Even if the disposition of the shower's letter is recognized, or the nature or form of the lawsuit is different on the ground of the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted, as

3. Conclusion

Since the part concerning the main claim and the main claim in the lawsuit in this case are unlawful, it shall be dismissed. Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the corresponding part shall be revoked and the lawsuit concerning the corresponding part shall be dismissed as per Disposition.