Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Myeon-3 Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (Law Firm Mountainous District, Attorneys Park Jong-san et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

June 15, 2010

1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part arising from the defendant's participation, are assessed against the plaintiffs.

[Main Claim] : The defendant's disposition of approving the establishment of a partnership against the defendant's intervenor on September 4, 2008 is invalid.

[Preliminary Claim] The defendant's disposition to establish an association against the defendant's intervenor on September 4, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

(a) A master plan for maintenance;

On March 23, 2006, the Mayor of Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City established and publicly announced the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Master Plan for Urban and Residential Environment Rearrangement (Housing Reconstruction Division) including the designation of approximately 70,000 square meters (number 1 omitted) as a zone to be rearranged by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice No. 2006-95 on March 23, 2006.

(b) Demand for written consents;

1) On July 13, 2007, which was approved by the Defendant on July 13, 2007 for the establishment of a housing reconstruction project with respect to the housing reconstruction project of 68,230.5 square meters (hereinafter “instant project zone”) in Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul (number 2 omitted), Jung-gu (hereinafter “instant promotion committee”) drafted a written consent from 349 owners, such as the land in the instant project zone, to establish the housing reconstruction project association (hereinafter “instant consent”).

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 3. 조합설립 및 정비사업 내용 동의 ？ 가. 신축건축물의 설계개요 ？ 대지면적 건축연면적 규모 기타 ？ (공부상면적) 68,230.5㎡ 170,542.13㎡ 지상25~30층 / 지하2층 전체 1,228세대 ？ ？ ？ 나. 건축물철거 및 신축비용 개산액 ？ 철거비 신축비 기타사업비용 합계 ？ 3,249,391,475원 196,038,200,000원 9,448,625,000원 208,736,216,475원 ？ ？ ？ 다. 나목의 비용의 분담사항 ⑴ 조합정관에 따라 경비를 부과하고 징수하며, 관리처분시 가청산하고, 조합청산시 청산금을 최종 확정함 ⑵ 조합원의 소유자산의 가치를 조합정관이 정하는 바에 따라 산정하여 형평의 원칙에 의거 조합정관에서 규정한 관리처분기준에 따라 비용 및 수익을 균등하게 부담·배분함 ⑶ 시공사에 지급할 공사금액 및 사업 관련 제반비용은 주택 및 부대복리시설의 일반분양 수입금과 조합원총회에서 결의되거나 서면동의한 조합원분담금으로 우선 충당하고, 부족금이 발생할 경우 조합정관 및 관리처분기준에 따라 공평하게 분담함 ？ 라. 신축건축물 구분소유권의 귀속에 관한 사항 ⒧ 조합정관의 관리처분기준에 따르며, 주택을 소유한 조합원의 신축 건축물에 대한 분양평형 결정은 조합원 분양신청 및 종전권리가액의 다액순에 의하고 동·호수 결정은 조합정관 제48조의 규정에 의한 전산추첨 등에 의한다. 단 경합이 있는 경우에는 조합정관 및 관리처분기준에 의한 방법에 따름 ⑵ 상가 등 복리시설의 소유자는 조합정관 및 관리처분기준에 의하여 종전 토지 및 건축물의 가치를 고려하여 새로이 설치되는 복리시설을 공급받되, 동·호수 결정은 관리처분계획이 정하는 바에 따른다. 단, 복리시설을 설치하지 아니하는 경우 또는 조합정관 제48조에 해당하는 경우 주택을 공급받을 수 있음 ⑶ 사업시행 후 분양받을 주택 등의 면적은 분양면적(전용면적+공용면적)을 기준으로 하며, 대지는 분양받은 주택 등의 면적비례에 따라 공유지분으로 분양함 ⑷ 조합원에게 우선분양하고 남는 잔여주택 및 상가 등 복리시설은 관계법령과 조합정관이 정하는 바에 따라 일반분양함 ⑸ 토지는 사업완료 후 지분등기하며 건축물은 입주조합원 각자 보존등기함 ？ 4. 조합장 선정동의 본 조합의 대표자(조합장)는 조합원총회에서 조합정관에 따라 선출된 자를 조합장으로 하는데 동의함 ？ 5. 조합정관 승인 동의 조합정관안에 동의하고 법 제16조에 의거 정비사업조합을 설립함에 있어 그 조합정관을 신의성실의 원칙에 의거 준수하며 조합정관이 정하는 바에 따라 조합정관이 변경되는 경우 이의 없이 따를 것에 동의함

2) The instant written consent is in accordance with Article 15(2) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9444, Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “former Act”), Article 14(1)5 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Ordinance No. 4684, Sept. 30, 2008; hereinafter “instant Ordinance”), Article 34 of the Enforcement Rule attached to the Regulations for Operation of the Promotion Committee for the Establishment of Rearrangement Project, publicly notified under Article 165 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and Article 34 of the [Attachment 3-1] of the Enforcement Rule for the Establishment of Housing Reconstruction Project

(c) Designation and announcement of an improvement zone;

The Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on September 20, 2007 designated and publicly announced the project area of this case as an improvement zone (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice No. 2007-326) in accordance with Article 4 (2) and (3) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas.

(d) Authorization to establish association;

1) On January 30, 2008, the instant promotion committee held an inaugural general meeting for the establishment of the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”).

2) On August 14, 2008, the intervenor filed an application for authorization to establish the intervenor with the defendant on August 14, 2008. On September 4, 2008, the defendant approved the establishment of the intervenor by deeming that 349 of the owners of the housing and the land located within the project area of the instant case consented and agreed by 457 owners reached 76.37% of the consent ratio and met the consent ratio (hereinafter “instant authorization disposition”).

Owners of land included in the main sentence: 76.37% (349/457) of the consent rate of two persons: Two persons (owners of land, etc.) housing and landowners: 457 persons incidental welfare facilities and 22 persons who own the land: 483 persons;

(e) Re-signing written consents;

The plaintiffs, on March 10, 2009, filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the establishment of an intervenor association based on the instant written consent, asserting that the establishment of the intervenor association based on the instant written consent was null and void, and filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the establishment of the intervenor association (the above court 2009Gahap2037) on March 10, 2009. The date of dispute as to the validity of the instant written consent, and the intervenor filed a new written consent from March 2009 to March 4, 209, including 349 owners, such as the land owner who consented to the establishment of the intervenor, from the owners of the land within the instant project zone (hereinafter referred to as the “instant written consent to supplement”).

본문내 포함된 표 ？ Ⅱ. 동의내용 ？ 1. 조합설립(2008년 9월 4일 조합설립인가) 및 정비사업 내용 동의 가. 신축건축물의 설계개요 ？ 구분 개요 및 내용 비고 ？ 대지위치 서울특별시 중랑구 면목5동 (지번 2 생략)번지 일대 ？ 대지면적 68,230.5㎡ 제외면적 3,908.43㎡ ？ 순수사업면적 55,310.00㎡ ？ 건축면적 9,664.31㎡ ？ 연면적 229,660.86㎡ 지상 : 157,082.46㎡ 지하 : 72,578.40㎡ 건폐율 17.4730% 용적율 284.0037% 용적율(임대 : 34.0522%) 규모 지상 25~30층/지하 2층 10개동 부대복리시설 ？ 세대수 1,228세대(분양주택:1037세대, 임대주택:191세대) ？ ？ ？ 나. 건축물철거 및 신축비용 개산액 ？ ？ 철거비 신축비 기타사업비용 합계 ？ 4,334,000,000원 284,836,000,000 62,879,000,000원 352,049,000,000원 ※ “설계개요 및 개산액”은 사업시행인가내용, 시공자 등과의 계약내용 및 제 사업비 지출내용에 따라 변경될 수 있음 ？ ？ 다. 평형별 조합원 예상 분양가액 및 세대수(평균금액이며, 층수, 조망 등에 따라 차등됨) ？ ？ 분양면적 아파트 분양가액(총액) 분양면적 아파트 분양가액(총액) ？ 88.49㎡(250세대) 283,500,000원 113.92㎡(530세대) 394,400,000원 144.28㎡(276세대) 563,200,000원 159.05㎡(112세대) 628,800,000원 178.89㎡(56세대) 723,600,000원 271.16㎡(4세대) 1,098,800,000원 ？ ？ ？ ？ 층수 상가 분양가액(3.3㎡당) 층수 상가 분양가액(3.3㎡당) ？ 1층(면적) 25,000,000원/(3.3㎡당) 2층 15,000,000원/(3.3㎡당) 3층 12,000,000원/(3.3㎡당) 4층 10,000,000원/(3.3㎡당) 지상 5,360.00㎡ 지하 2,000.00㎡ 소계 7,360.00㎡ ？ ？ ？ ？ 라. 나목의 비용의 분담사항 ？ ⒧ 조합정관 및 ‘⑷ 비례율에 의한 비용분담 산출기준 및 조합원 분담금 추정예시’의 비용분담 산출기준에 따라 경비를 부과하고 징수하며, 관리처분시 가청산하고, 조합청산시 청산금을 최종 확정함. ⑵ 조합원의 소유자산의 가치를 조합정관이 정하는 바에 따라 산정하여 형평의 원칙에 의거 조합정관에서 규정한 관리처분기준에 따라 비용 및 수익을 균등하게 부담·배분함 ⑶ 시공사에 지급할 공사금액 및 사업 관련 제반비용은 주택 및 부대복리시설의 일반분양 수입금과 조합원총회에서 결의되거나 서면동의한 조합원분담금으로 우선 충당하고, 부족금이 발생할 경우 조합정관 및 관리처분기준에 따라 공평하게 분담함 ⑷ 비례율에 의한 비용분담 산출기준 및 조합원 분담금 추정예시 ？ ？ ① 분양 총수입 - ② 총지출(공사비 및 총 사업제경비) ？ ？ ？ ㆍ 비례율 = ------------------------------------------------------ × 100 ？ 전체 조합원들의 종전 토지 및 건축물 총 평가액 ？ ㆍ 조합원 권리가액=종전 소유토지 및 건축물가액×비례율 ㆍ 조합원 분담금=분양받을 아파트의 분양가액-(당해) 조합원의 권리가액 ⓛ 분양 총수입=594,471,000,000원 ㆍ 총 분양수입 : 아파트 분양수입 추정액(분양가산한제 적용), 임대주택 매각수입 추정액 부대복리시설(근린생활시설)분양수입 추정액 등을 합산한 총액 ② 총지출(공사비 및 총 사업경제비)=352,049,000,000원 ㆍ 철거비, 신축공사비, 기타사업비를 추정하여 합산한 총액 ？ ① 594,471,000,000원 - ② 352,049,000,000원 ？ ㆍ 비례율 = ------------------------------------------------------ × 100 = 약 109.49% ？ 221,400,000,000원 ？ ※ 조합원의 종전에 소유하던 토지 및 건물에 대한 평가액과 신축건물의 토지 및 건물가액의 평가액은 2개 공인감정평가기관이 산출한 금액으로 함(감정평가이전은 건설교통부의 주택공시가격을 참조할 것) ㆍ 개별 조합원 분담금 산출추정 예시 종전자산평가액 20,000만원 30,000만원 40,000만원 50,000만원 종전자산평가추정액 권리가액 21,898만원 32,847만원 43,796만원 54,745만원 종전자산평가액×비례율 113.92㎡ 분양가 39,440만원 39,440만원 39,440만원 39,440만원 조합원상한제추정분양가 입부분담금 -17,542만원 -6,593만원 4,356만원 15,305만원 분양가-권리가액 ？ ※ 상기 ‘비례율에 비용분담 산출기준 및 조합원 분담금 추정예시’는 향후 정부정책 변화에 따른 분양가 상한제의 폐지 및 분양시기의 조정, 지가변동, 물가변동 등의 외부요인 변화에 따라 수입금액이 변동될 수 있고, 감정평가기관의 종전자산평가에 의한 조합원 소유자산에 대한 종전자산평가금액의 변경, 향후 시공사 선정 및 계약조건 등에 따른 공사비의 변동, 사업시행기간의 단축 및 지연, 금리변동 등의 요인에 따라 지출비용이 변동될 수 있으며, 비례율 추정 및 조합원 분담금 등에 관한 사항은 관리처분시 조합원의 결의에 의해 결정함. ？ ？ ？ ？ 마. 신축건축물 구분소유권의 귀속에 관한 사항 ⒧ 조합정관의 관리처분기준에 따르며, 주택을 소유한 조합원의 신축 건축물에 대한 분양평형 결정은 조합원 분양신청 및 종전권리가액의 다액순에 의하고 동·호수 결정은 조합정관 제48조 제5항의 규정에 의한 전산추첨 등에 의한다. 단 경합이 있는 경우에는 조합정관 및 관리처분기준에 의한 방법에 따름 ⑵ 상가 등 복리시설의 소유자는 조합정관 및 관리처분기준에 의하여 종전 토지 및 건축물의 가치를 고려하여 새로이 설치되는 복리시설을 공급받되, 동·호수 결정은 관리처분계획이 정하는 바에 따른다. 단, 복리시설을 설치하지 아니하는 경우 또는 조합정관 제46조 제9호에 해당하는 경우 주택을 공급받을 수 있음 ⑶ 사업시행 후 분양받을 주택 등의 면적은 분양면적(전용면적+공용면적)을 기준으로 하며, 대지는 분양받은 주택 등의 면적비례에 따라 공유지분으로 분양함 ⑷ 조합원에게 우선분양하고 남는 잔여주택 및 상가 등 복리시설은 관계법령과 조합정관이 정하는 바에 따라 일반분양함 ⑸ 토지는 사업완료 후 지분등기하며 건축물은 입주조합원 각자 보존등기함 ？ 2. 사업계획 동의 면목3 주택재건축정비사업 조합에서 작성한 ⓛ사업계획서(안)(추후 사업계획에 따라 변경될 수 있음), ② 건축물철거 및 신축비용 개산액을 충분히 숙지하고 이에 주택재건축사업을 하기로 동의함

(f) Revision;

1) On December 23, 2009, the Defendant changed the matters of consent and the ratio of consent as indicated below, and thus, the Defendant changed the establishment of the association against the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

Owners of land included in the main sentence: 21 persons who own buildings at a rate of 84.06% (385.458): two (owners of land, etc.) housing and landowners: 458 persons (458 persons who own land, etc.): 481 persons in total; 481 persons

2) On April 1, 2010, an intervenor filed an application for authorization to change the establishment with the Defendant. On April 12, 2010, the Defendant filed an application for authorization to change the establishment with respect to the Intervenor on the ground that the consent rate was changed as indicated below (hereinafter “instant authorization disposition”). ② Meanwhile, at the time of the application for authorization to change the establishment, the Intervenor filed a written application to change the establishment with respect to the Intervenor, accompanied by the written consent to supplement of the instant case drafted from 424 owners, such as the land in the instant project area.

Owners of land included in the main sentence: 21 persons who own buildings at a rate of 94.86% (435/458): two (owners of land, etc.) housing and landowners: 458 persons (458 persons who own land, etc.): 481 persons in total;

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, 3, 2, 3, 18, Eul evidence Nos. 1-5, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, 6-1, 2, 3, 13-1, 2, and 3 of Eul evidence Nos. 10-1, 13-1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that the disposition of this case's authorization is unlawful due to the following defects, and that the disposition of this case's authorization should be revoked (preliminary claim).

○ lack of the requirements for designation of the rearrangement zone: The designation of the rearrangement zone in this case did not meet the requirements for designation of the rearrangement zone, such as the number of old and inferior buildings.

○ Nullity of the approval for establishment of the promotion committee of this case: The approval for establishment of the promotion committee of this case is null and void before the designation and announcement of the improvement zone. Thus, the approval of this case based on the consent form drafted by the promotion committee of this case without authority is unlawful.

The invalidity of the consent to establish an association: The design outline of a new building, a rough cost to be borne by its members, and matters concerning the attribution of ownership after completion of the project are not known only with the entries in the consent of this case. The consent to establish an association based on such consent is null and void, and the disposition of this case is also unlawful.

Although Article 16(3) of the former Act provides that the consent of at least 3/4 of the owners of land or buildings within an area which is not a housing complex should be obtained, the defendant judged whether the consent ratio is satisfied on the basis of only the owners of land and buildings. Thus, the approval disposition of this case is unlawful.

As to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant authorization disposition was unlawful since it was absorbed into the authorization disposition of modification on December 23, 2009 and the authorization disposition of modification on the instant case or its defect was cured due to the authorization disposition of modification on the instant case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking confirmation of nullity and revocation on the authorization disposition of this case is without legal interest.

3. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

4. Determination

A. First, the Plaintiffs’ assertion regarding the determination of consent rate should be seen. According to Article 16(2) and (3) of the former Act, where a rearrangement zone subject to a housing reconstruction project consists of a housing complex with respect to authorization for the establishment of a housing reconstruction project association, only the requirement for consent stipulated in Article 16(2) of the former Act; however, where an area which is not a housing complex is included in a rearrangement zone, not only the housing complex but also an area which is not a housing complex, the requirement for consent stipulated in Article 16(3) of the former Act should be additionally satisfied. Meanwhile, if a rearrangement zone is composed of an area which is not a housing complex, there is no separate provision regarding the requirements for consent regarding authorization for the establishment of a housing reconstruction project association. However, as long as the elements for consent stipulated in Article 16(3) of the former Act are not met, it is unreasonable to view that an intervenor’s establishment of a housing complex is not a housing complex, but also an urban housing complex, not an urban housing complex under Article 16(3) of the former Act.

In addition, the former Act separates the owner of land or building from the owner of land, etc. (Article 2 subparag. 9, Article 16(1) and (3), Article 39 of the former Act), and the owner of land or building can not become a partner for a housing reconstruction project (Article 19(1) and Article 2 subparag. 9 of the former Act), although the owner of land or building can not become a partner for a housing reconstruction project (Article 39 of the former Act). In light of the fact that the owner of land or building has a significant interest in the establishment of a housing reconstruction project association (Article 39 of the former Act), and the meaning of the provision itself, it is reasonable to deem that the above provision includes not only all the owner of land and building, but also all the owner of land or building, which meet the requirements for the consent of the owner of the land or building at the time of such construction 】 (Article 39 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions 】 (Article 483 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Utilization).

B. However, the intervenor association re-re-written consent from 75 persons (424-349) who agreed to the establishment of the intervenor association after the initial approval disposition of this case, and additionally collected written consent for supplementation of this case from 75 persons (424-349) until the approval disposition of this case. The total project cost stated in the written consent for supplementation of this case is more than 208,736,216,475 won and more than 143,312,783,525 won as stated in the written consent of this case and more than 208,736,216,475 won and more than 143,312,783,525 won as stated in the written consent of this case. Thus, if the project cost based on the written consent of the intervenor association of this case is modified, it is reasonable to conclude that the consent of the intervenor association of this case is invalid or invalid as a new administrative consent of the intervenor association of this case without the approval of this case.

Accordingly, even if the instant authorization disposition was absorbed into the instant authorization disposition, the Plaintiffs asserts that there is a legal interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant authorization disposition, as the Intervenor’s association is proceeding with a subsequent procedure for implementing the reconstruction project, such as filing a lawsuit claiming for sale against the Plaintiffs on the basis of the instant authorization disposition. Therefore, the Plaintiffs asserted that there is a legal interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant authorization disposition. Therefore, as seen in the administrative relationship, in general, the past legal relationship cannot be subject to confirmation, but as seen in the administrative relationship such as the administrative disposition, multiple legal relations based on the premise occur, and if it can be a valid and appropriate means for seeking confirmation of the past legal relationship, rather than repeated procedures for seeking confirmation on a daily basis. However, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiffs’ assertion that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Intervenor’s association established a project implementation plan based on the instant authorization disposition after receiving the instant authorization disposition or that subsequent procedures for filing a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs, and therefore, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiffs’ claim seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant disposition between the Intervenor and the Intervenor.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Judge)