The case affirming the judgment below holding that even if the disposition of an administrative agency to establish a housing redevelopment project promotion committee was conducted with the consent of a majority of the owners of lands, etc. finalized by the planned rearrangement area before the designation and public notice of the rearrangement zone, the defect cannot be deemed serious or obvious.

Article 1 [General Administrative Disposition] and Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 13 (2) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008)

Plaintiff (Attorney Tae-ho et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Gwangju Metropolitan City Mine;

Promotion Committee for the Establishment of New House Development and Improvement Project Cooperatives (Attorney Park Jong-do, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2009Nu2121 decided April 22, 2010

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In order for an administrative disposition to be deemed null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the disposition is insufficient, and the defect is objectively obvious as material part of the law. In determining whether the defect is serious or clear, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law should be examined as a teleological basis, and at the same time, reasonable consideration should be made on the specificity of the specific case itself (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du2403, Nov. 26, 2004; 2005Du11937, Sept. 21, 2007; 2005Du1937, Sept. 207). In addition, where an administrative disposition was rendered by applying a certain provision of the law to a certain legal relation or fact, it is evident that the above provision cannot be applied to the legal relation or fact, and it is obvious that there is an objective error in the determination of the Supreme Court, even if there is no room for 208Da1684, which is an object of the administrative disposition.

(4) Article 13 (2) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 852, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act"), which applies to this case, shall be established with the consent of the Promotion Committee for the Development of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Promotion Committee for the Development of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents") at the request of the Mayor/Do Governor to designate an improvement zone at the 10th of March 24, 206. Unlike Article 13 (2) of the current Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act"), the lower court determined that the consent of the Promotion Committee for the Development of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, including the landowner's land and the head of the Si/Gun/Gu is not required to be included in the 20th of the rearrangement zone.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the invalidation of the former Domination or administrative disposition, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal

The Supreme Court ruling cited in the ground of appeal is different from this case and it is not appropriate to apply this case.

2. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of employment, the lower court determined that the consent letter received by the Intervenor prior to the public inspection and publication of the draft basic plan of this case or the public announcement of the basic plan of this case also has the validity as the consent to the formation of the association promotion committee whose business area covers the zone scheduled

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of consent to the composition of the association promotion committee

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)