(a) Legal relations of redevelopment cooperatives under the Urban Redevelopment Act;

(b) The term "members shall remove obstacles, such as their own buildings, etc. within 30 days, within the project implementation district" means whether there exists the articles of association of the redevelopment cooperative, if there is a provision of the articles of association of the redevelopment cooperative (negative);

A. Since the legal relations of redevelopment cooperatives under the Urban Redevelopment Act include the rights and obligations under public law, the rights and obligations acquired by the partnership, in particular, with the exception of the rights and obligations acquired through private contracts after the establishment of the association, shall be borne under the conditions as prescribed by the Urban Redevelopment Act.

B. Even though the articles of association of the redevelopment association provide that "a partner shall remove obstacles, such as the building owned by him within 30 days, within the project implementation district," it cannot be deemed that there was an agreement between the partnership in question and the union members on the contractual rights and obligations concerning the removal of the building, and it cannot be deemed that there was an agreement between the partnership in question and the union members on the establishment of a certain rights and obligations under the public law. This merely expresses the provisions of Article 36 of the Urban Redevelopment Act as a matter of principle. Thus, the partnership may not seek the removal of the building by means of civil procedure without removing the building by means

Article 36 of the Urban Redevelopment Act

Hong Jinina District 2 Housing Improvement and Development Cooperatives, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendant 3’s Intervenor

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na7615 delivered on June 1, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal (1) and (2) are examined.

As seen in Articles 9, 17, and 18 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, with respect to the legal relations of redevelopment association composed of owners within a redevelopment project zone with the aim of implementing an urban redevelopment project under the provisions of Article 20 (Compulsory Subscription of Members), 27, 54 (Compulsory Imposition and Collection of Dues and Liquidation Money), 36 (Demand for Transfer of Land, etc.), 37 (Compensation for Loss), 38 (Expropriation), 41 (Authorization of Management and Disposal Plan), 67 (Administrative Appeal), and 69 (Application of Bribery to Officers and Employees) of the Act, the rights and obligations under the provisions of the Act shall be the contents of the rights and obligations under the provisions of the Act, excluding the rights and obligations acquired by the said association under the provisions of private law, and thus, the rights and obligations to be borne by the said association should be removed within 30 days after the establishment of the redevelopment project under the provisions of the Act on Urban Redevelopment and the removal of the said articles of association within the redevelopment project under the provisions of the said Act.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

Article 17 of the Urban Redevelopment Act provides that when a redevelopment project is implemented by establishing a partnership under Article 9 of the Act, the articles of association and the project implementation plan shall be prepared under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall obtain approval for the establishment of the partnership and the implementation of the redevelopment project. According to Articles 40 and 41 of the same Act, the owners of the land and buildings who intend to purchase the land or constructed facilities shall apply for parcelling-out within 60 days from the date the approval for the implementation of the redevelopment project is publicly notified shall apply for parcelling-out, and the implementer shall obtain the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation by determining the management and disposal plan concerning the land and constructed facilities as prescribed by this Act at the expiration of the said period. In full view of the provisions and Articles 42, 43, 45, and 47 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, the above provisions can not be said to include the contents of the management and disposal plan prepared and submitted by the plaintiff at the time of the establishment and the implementation of the project.

The grounds of appeal No. 4 are examined.

Even if Defendant 1's non-compliance with the removal of the building of this case constitutes an abuse of rights, it is not possible to seek removal of the objection by means of civil procedure as already examined. Therefore, it is groundless to discuss.

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

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)