[1] Where the project implementation period stipulated in the project implementation plan established by the maintenance and improvement project association established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is too excessive, whether the legal effect of the project implementation plan, which was implemented within the project implementation period, becomes retroactively null and void (negative)

[2] Where the specific and direct judgment on the matters alleged by the parties is not indicated in the judgment, but in light of the overall purport of the reasoning of the judgment, or where it is evident that the assertion will be rejected although it did not make a decision, whether there was an omission in the judgment (negative)

[1] Even if the project implementation period stipulated in the project implementation plan established by the maintenance and improvement project association established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is too excessive, the legal effect of the project implementation plan, including the purchase and expropriation of land conducted within the project implementation period, shall not be retroactively invalidated.

[2] The reasoning of a written judgment is sufficient to indicate the judgment on the party’s assertion and other means of offence and defense to the extent that it can be recognized that the text is justifiable, and there is no need to determine all of the parties’ allegations or means of offence and defense (Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, even if no specific and direct determination on a party’s assertion is indicated in a court judgment, it cannot be deemed an omission of judgment if it is possible to find out that the allegations were cited or rejected in light of the overall purport of the reasoning of the judgment, and even if it is obvious that the assertion would be rejected even if the decision was not actually made, there is no

[1] Article 28 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents / [2] Articles 8(2) and 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [Administrative Litigation General], Article 208 of the

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2006Da218 Decided July 10, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1146), Supreme Court Decision 2011Da87174 Decided April 26, 2012 (Gong2012Sang, 863)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Citro, Attorneys Kim Young-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff-Supplementary Intervenor (Law Firm Catro, Attorneys Kim Young-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-Supplementary intervenor)

Freeboard 4 Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (Attorney Dog-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu57118 decided January 19, 2016

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. As to the benefit of the action

The lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, determined that the Plaintiffs have the interest in filing a lawsuit seeking nullification of the initial project implementation plan (based on the summary of the original judgment; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the first and second project implementation plan (hereinafter referred to as “previous project implementation plan, etc.”).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records of the judgment of the court of first instance, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interest in litigation where the project implementation plan was

B. As to the invalidation of the previous project implementation plan

On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, since the judgment to nullify the invalidity of the first disposition of approving the establishment of a partnership and the judgment to revoke the first disposition of approving the establishment of a partnership became final and conclusive, the previous business implementation plan, etc., which was followed based on the above disposition of approving the establishment of a partnership, has lost its validity retroactively, and that even if the third business implementation plan was formulated and approved, and

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the legal principles related to the judgment of the court below and the contents and degree of defects in the previous project implementation plan, etc. and the evidence duly admitted, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the invalidation of administrative disposition and the recovery of invalid administrative act, etc.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from this case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

2. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. As to the first and second points

The lower court determined that, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, even if the period of the project implementation stipulated in the third project implementation plan was exceeded, the said project implementation plan itself cannot be deemed null and void, and (2) even if the Defendant was defective in formulating the fourth project implementation plan to partially alter the third project implementation plan after the project implementation period was over, and obtaining authorization from the competent authority, the fourth project implementation plan does not necessarily become null and void.

Even if the project implementation period stipulated in the project implementation plan established by the maintenance and improvement project association established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the legal effect of the project implementation plan including the purchase and expropriation of land conducted within the project implementation period, including the purchase and expropriation thereof, cannot be retroactively invalidated and null and void. In light of the relevant legal principles, etc. of the judgment of the court below, even if the reasoning of the judgment below is partly inappropriate, the decision of the court below that the plan for the fourth project implementation was not void as a matter of course, and that of the plaintiff's claim for the confirmation of the invalidity of the third project implementation plan under the premise that the third project implementation plan is asserted as void as a matter of course is acceptable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the decision of the

B. On the third ground for appeal

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the third project implementation plan is invalid on a different premise, and the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the third or fifth project implementation plan is invalid on a different premise is without merit, inasmuch as the third project implementation plan was established by the Defendant lawfully established under the second project implementation plan to supplement the defect of the first project implementation plan and the second project implementation plan to replace the previous project implementation plan.

Examining the evidence duly admitted the reasoning of the lower judgment and the factual basis recognized by the lower court, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the invalidation of a project implementation plan, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

C. On the fourth ground for appeal

In a written judgment, a judgment on a party’s assertion and other means of offence and defense should be indicated to the extent that it is possible to recognize that the text is justifiable, and there is no need to determine all allegations by the parties or all methods of offence and defense (Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, even if no specific and direct determination on a party’s assertion is indicated in a written judgment, it cannot be deemed omission of judgment if it is possible to know that the assertion was accepted or rejected in light of the overall purport of the reasons for the judgment. Even if the court did not actually make a judgment, if it is obvious that such assertion would be rejected even if it was rejected, it cannot be said that there was an error of omission of judgment since it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da218, Jul. 10, 2008; 2011Da87174, Apr. 26

The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the third project implementation plan was not void as a matter of course. However, the lower court did not expressly state the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the third project implementation plan is void as a matter of course because the Defendant passed the third project implementation plan without notifying its members of the increased construction price in advance.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, the overall contents of the judgment below that the third project implementation plan was not invalid since it was duly established by the defendant, can be deemed that the purport of rejecting the plaintiffs' assertion is included. In addition, according to the records including the evidence duly adopted, it is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not notify members of the increase in construction cost prior to the resolution on the third project implementation plan, so even if the court below did not determine this part of the plaintiffs' assertion, it does not affect the conclusion. Therefore, the ground of appeal that the court below erred in the misapprehension of

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)