As shown in the attached list of plaintiffs (Attorney Yu-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

South Yangyang Market (Law Firm Dongin, Attorneys Park Jong-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Coin Assets Trust Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Namsan, Attorneys Jeon-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

October 23, 2012

1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On March 30, 2012, the Defendant’s disposition of inspection of use on the ground housing construction project is revoked to the Defendant’s Intervenor, Coin Assets Trust Co., Ltd. on March 30, 2012

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s asset trust (hereinafter “ Intervenor’s Intervenor’s asset trust”) is a housing construction project implementer for the instant apartment (location omitted)-ground ○○○○○○ apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”). The Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s constituent members, Co., Ltd., is a housing construction project implementer for the said apartment, and the Plaintiffs are the said apartment purchaser.

B. On September 24, 2009, the Defendant approved the housing construction project plan of the instant apartment, and added the conditions for project approval, stating, “When the installation of infrastructure, such as roads, water supply and drainage, conducted by the Korea Land Corporation, is delayed so as to minimize the inconvenience of residents in connection with the separate housing site development zone project, the timing of occupancy may be delayed, and when the construction of infrastructure, such as roads, water supply and drainage, may be delayed.”

C. On February 2012, the Intervenor’s Cocco asset trust completed the instant apartment on and around March 30, 2012, and received a pre-use inspection on the instant apartment from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's assertion

The plaintiffs sought revocation of the dispositions of this case on the ground that the apartment of this case is illegal in relation to the failure to comply with the approval conditions, such as machinery ventilation equipment, indoor air quality control, convenience facilities for persons with disabilities, school site disuse, leakage reduction facilities, duty to install infrastructure, etc., and the supervisor's false supervision opinion, etc., the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs have no standing to sue, since they are merely the indirect and factual interested parties of the disposition of this case, and there is no legal interest to seek

B. Determination

(1) Even if a third party who is not the other party to an administrative disposition is not the direct party, if the interests protected by law are infringed by the administrative disposition, it shall be entitled to obtain a decision of the propriety thereof by filing an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation or nullity of the disposition. However, the term "legal interests" refers to cases where there are individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations and relevant laws and regulations, and in cases where general, indirect, and abstract interests of the general public are generated as a result of protecting public interests, it shall not be deemed that there are legally protected interests (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du14001, Dec. 22, 2006).

(2) In light of such legal principles, the instant disposition taken by the Defendant against the Intervenor Coco Assets Trust constitutes a pre-use inspection that may have the effect of approving the use of a building pursuant to Article 29(1) and (2) of the Housing Act, and Article 22 of the Building Act. Based on the content and purport of the aforementioned relevant laws and regulations, etc., comprehensively taking into account the following various circumstances into account: (a) the Plaintiffs, who are in the position of the buyer, on the instant apartment, have the right to seek approval refusal of the use of the instant apartment on the ground that the instant apartment falls under a direct and specific legal interest protected by the above laws and regulations, etc. on the ground that the Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the conditions for approval, such as mechanical ventilation equipment, indoor air quality control, disabled persons, school site abolition, rainwater reduction facilities, and duty to install infrastructure, and the consulting engineers’ false supervision, etc.

(A) The disposition of pre-use inspection of a building is merely a legal effect that enables the permitted person to use or benefit from the building constructed by confirming whether the building constructed with a building permit is in conformity with the purpose of the building permit and issuing the certificate of pre-use inspection. In a case where the constructed building violates the related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Building Act, it does not justify the violation of such Acts and subordinate statutes. Even if the disposition of pre-use inspection of the building is revoked, it merely means that the owner, etc. is unable to use the building lawfully and return to the state prior to the pre-use inspection. Whether to issue a corrective order for the building in violation, the timing and contents of the order, etc. are separately determined by a reasonable judgment of the administrative agency (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu20481, Jan. 14, 1994; 2006Du18409, Apr. 26, 2007, etc.).

(B) In the instant case, even if the Intervenor’s Cocco asset trust at the time of the instant disposition failed to comply with the approval conditions granted at the time of the instant application for the approval of the housing construction project plan, or it is recognized that the defects were the same as the Plaintiffs asserted in the instant apartment, the revocation of the approval of the use of the instant apartment on such grounds would result in the Plaintiff’s failure to use the instant apartment based on the instant disposition, including a large number of buyers, who actively requested the usage inspection, unlike the Plaintiffs, if they were to cancel the approval of the use of the instant apartment, and

(C) In addition, even if the disposition in this case is revoked for the above reasons, the effect of revocation does not immediately mean that the status of failure to install infrastructure as claimed by the Plaintiffs or the state of defect in the relevant building is removed or supplemented. Rather, if the Plaintiffs are unable to achieve the purpose of the sales contract or suffered losses due to such defects, it constitutes a remedy method more appropriate for each party to cancel the sales contract or follow other civil procedures.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since all of the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

【Attachment List of Plaintiffs】

Judges Kim Su-cheon (Presiding Judge) Na Kim Jong-Un