Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Lee Han-woo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Hong 1 Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (Law Firm Dong, Attorneys Jin-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 11, 2014

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs, including the cost of supplementary participation.

On September 17, 2013, the Defendant revoked the disposition of approving the establishment of the Housing Reconstruction Project Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “instant promotion committee”) with respect to the establishment of the Housing Reconstruction Project Association.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 7, 2006, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City designated and publicly announced the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 18 omitted) No. 2006-312 as a housing reconstruction improvement zone (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”).

B. On May 14, 2007, the instant promotion committee obtained approval for establishment of the promotion committee aimed at establishing a housing redevelopment improvement project with the rearrangement zone in the planned project implementation zone from the Defendant.

C. 1) On May 2, 2013, the instant promotion committee held an inaugural general meeting (hereinafter “instant inaugural general meeting”) and applied for authorization to establish an association to the Defendant on or around September 2013, along with the draft consent to establish a new association from the landowners or building owners in the instant improvement zone. Accordingly, on September 17, 2013, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant promotion committee obtained the consent of 101 landowners (12 landowners, 2 building owners, 89 landowners, and 108 building owners) from 132 landowners (12 landowners, 12 landowners, and 76.52%) (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”); and (b) approved the establishment of the Intervenor’s association (hereinafter “ Intervenor’s association”) pursuant to Article 16(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2) 39 of the 89 landowners or building owners who agreed to the establishment of the Intervenor’s association submitted a written resolution prior to the instant inaugural general meeting. The “General List on Results” of the instant inaugural general meeting refers to 33 landowners or building owners who attended the instant inaugural general meeting and 17 of them are those who submitted a written resolution.

D. The Plaintiffs are the owners of the land or buildings within the instant rearrangement zone.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 8, 32 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(i) the first argument;

Article 24(5) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that at least 20/100 of the members of the inaugural general meeting shall be present directly in the case of the inaugural general meeting. The above provision aims to prevent any harm that the general meeting operates formally, and to make decisions against and against the agenda of the general meeting through free discussions. As such, the person who attends the inaugural general meeting after submitting a written resolution shall not be included in those who directly attended the meeting. However, in the case of the inaugural general meeting of this case, 16 of the owners of the land, etc. who have consented to the establishment of the intervenor association is directly present at the inaugural general meeting of this case, the resolution made at the inaugural general meeting of this case violates Article 24(5) of the Urban Improvement Act and shall be null

(ii) the second argument;

Since Nonparty 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 13, 49, 50, 51, 24, 34, 44, and 24, who are the owners of land or buildings within the rearrangement zone of this case, withdrawn their consent to establish an association before applying for authorization for establishment of the association, and therefore, the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2407, Jul. 31, 2012; Presidential Decree No. 28 (hereinafter the same shall apply) only delegated the establishment of an association to the Defendant without any reasonable ground to withdraw consent from the establishment of the association, and the amendment of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2407, Jul. 27, 2012; Presidential Decree No. 2016 of the same shall apply).

Even if the instant provision does not go beyond the limit of delegated legislation and is valid as it does not violate the principle of statutory reservation and the principle of equality, the design outline of the building specified in the written consent for the establishment of the association was modified, and thus, the withdrawal of consent by Nonparty 33 is valid.

Accordingly, all of them must be excluded from consenters.

(iii) the third assertion;

According to Article 16 of the Act and Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, etc., when the committee of promotion of housing reconstruction projects intends to establish an association, it shall obtain consent from the owners of land, etc. and obtain authorization from the competent authority after obtaining consent from the competent authority. However, since the design outline of buildings to be constructed after obtaining consent from the owners of land or buildings within the rearrangement zone of this case was modified, the committee of promotion of this case should have prepared a written consent which includes the modified contents and have re-written consent, but it was subject to the disposition of this case, which is the authorization for establishment, from the defendant, using the written consent which was drafted previously, so the disposition of this case was unlawful since it violated the Act on the Maintenance

4) The fourth argument

On June 8, 201, Nonparty 52, the chairperson of the instant promotion committee, intended to revise the designation of the improvement zone by sending a notice to the landowners or building owners in the instant improvement zone, and by expanding the legal maximum floor area ratio by 300% more than the previous legal maximum floor area ratio by 50%. In such cases, the number of households in units is increased by 93 households, and 34.9 billion won is created based on the usual sale price, and requested to actively participate in the establishment of an association. As a result, a large number of landowners or building owners who did not submit a written consent until that time submitted the written consent to believe the horses of Nonparty 52. However, the improvement plan that tried to extend the legal maximum floor area ratio to 300% was rejected by the Seoul Urban Planning Deliberation Committee, and the instant disposition was unlawful due to serious defects in the procedure of the consent.

5) The fifth argument

The promotion committee of this case stated the proportional rate as 109.6% in the written consent as an example of the method of estimating the allotment of each object of sale. However, there are serious defects in the written consent because there is no basis for the Act on the Regulation of Urban Improvement, even though the proportional rate has been recognized as a practice. Even if the proportional rate has been recognized as a practice, the proportional rate of 109.6% in light of the difference in the sale rate due to the real estate economic depression and the decrease in development gains, etc. In the end, the promotion committee of this case was virtually unable to perform the proportional rate of 109.6% in fact. Ultimately, the promotion committee of this case, by manipulating the presumption of the proportional rate, requested the consent of the landowners or building owners as if the reconstruction project is implemented, as

6) The fifth argument

① The land and the above-ground buildings are owned by Nonparty 53, Nonparty 54, Nonparty 55, and Nonparty 56. Nonparty 54’s consent is not attached to the written consent to the appointment of the representative partner. Nonparty 54, Nonparty 55, and Nonparty 56 did not submit the written consent of Nonparty 53, the representative, and Nonparty 53’s consent should be excluded from the number of consenters.

(2) In the case of land and buildings on its ground, the consent form shall be subject to exclusion from the number of consenters, since the copy of a resident registration certificate that is not a certificate of seal imprint is attached thereto, which is not a certificate of seal imprint.

③ The land and the above-ground buildings are jointly owned by Nonparty 8, Nonparty 9, Nonparty 10, and Nonparty 11. Since a copy of the identification card of the representative partner and the mandator is not attached to the written consent to the appointment of the representative partner, it should be excluded from the number of consenters.

④ The land and the above-ground buildings are jointly owned by Nonparty 13, Nonparty 14, and Nonparty 15. Since a copy of the identification card of the representative partner and the mandator is not attached to the written consent to the appointment of the representative partner, it shall be excluded from the number of consenters.

⑤ A land and a building on its ground are owned by Nonparty 16, Nonparty 17, Nonparty 18, and Nonparty 19. Since a copy of the identification card of the representative partner and the mandator is not attached to the written consent to the appointment of the representative partner, the number of consenters should be excluded.

6. (Road 21 omitted) Land and its ground buildings are owned jointly by Nonparty 57 and Nonparty 58. Since Nonparty 58, one of the co-owners, did not submit a written consent, it should be excluded from the number of consenters.

7. ( Address 30 omitted) Land and its ground buildings are owned jointly by Nonparty 59 and Nonparty 60. Since Nonparty 60, one of the co-owners, did not submit a written consent, it should be excluded from the number of consenters.

8. ( Address 10 omitted) Land and buildings thereon shall be jointly owned by Nonparty 20 and Nonparty 21. The consent form for the appointment of the representative partner shall be excluded from the number of consenters, as it is null and void since no copy of the identification card is attached to the consent form for the appointment of the representative partner.

9. ( Address 11 omitted) Land and its ground buildings are owned by the joint owners of Nonparty 22, Nonparty 23, Nonparty 24, Nonparty 25, and Nonparty 61. Since a copy of the identification card of the representative and the mandator is not attached to the written consent to the appointment of the representative partner, it should be excluded from the number of consenters.

(10) A ground ground No. 101 is owned by Nonparty 39. Nonparty 39 is not attached with a certificate of personal seal impression on September 26, 2012, which was finally submitted by Nonparty 39, and thus should be excluded from the number of consenters.

11. ( Address 23 omitted) On the ground ground No. 1 owned by Nonparty 75, and Nonparty 75 died on April 30, 1999, Nonparty 62, Nonparty 63, Nonparty 64, Nonparty 65, Nonparty 66, Nonparty 67, and Nonparty 68, co-inheritors, co-inheritors, share the above real estate, and thus, the number of consenters should be excluded from the number of consenters.

(12) Subparagraph (b) of above-ground Nos. 24 omitted, (No. 25 omitted), and (No. 26 omitted) of above-ground No. 26 owned by Nonparty 26. The consent letter submitted by Nonparty 26 does not have a seal impression affixed and a certificate of seal impression is not attached. However, since it is invalid because it is signed and accompanied only by signature authentication, it should be excluded from the number of consenters.

(13) ( Address 27 omitted) Land and its ground buildings shall be owned jointly by Nonparty 69 and Nonparty 70. Since Nonparty 70, one of the co-owners, did not submit a written consent, it shall be excluded from the number of consenters.

(14) A written consent submitted by Nonparty 71, who was the owner of the land and the building on its ground, died after submitting the written consent. Since the written consent submitted by Nonparty 71, “the conditions to purchase at the association after the selection of the contractor” are added thereto, it is null and void. Nonparty 72, Nonparty 73, and Nonparty 74, who were coinheritors, submitted the written consent and did not submit the written consent to appoint the representative partner or the written consent by Nonparty 73 and Nonparty 74, who were not the coinheritors, and thus excluded from the number of consenters.

(15) Land ( Address 14 omitted) and ( Address 15 omitted) is owned by Nonparty 28, Nonparty 29, Nonparty 30, and Nonparty 31. Since one of the co-owners did not submit a written consent, it should be excluded from the number of consenters.

( Address 12 omitted) Land is owned by Nonparty 32, and is void because Nonparty 32’s certificate of personal seal impression is not attached to the written consent, it should be excluded from the number of consenters.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On September 7, 2006, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City designated and publicly announced the rearrangement zone in this case as a housing reconstruction rearrangement zone under the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice No. 2006-312, and the main contents are as follows.

(f) Table contained in the main use, building-to-land ratio of 0 2.0 square meters x 17,246 ( Address 18) x 250% or less of the total floor area of 30 m28 m2, 17,000 or less of 28 m28 m2, i. 66 m2) calculated based on the aggregate floor area ratio of 10.00.00 m28,828 m28 m26 m2, i. 36 m2, i. 36 m2, i. 600 m2, i. 36 m2, 300 m26 m2, i. 60 m2, 196 m26, 196 m2, i. 65 m.

2) “Written consent to the establishment of a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association” prepared by the instant promotion committee is the same form as the legal consent prescribed by the Urban Improvement Act. Among them, the design outline of a new building is as follows. On the other hand, the presumption of proportional rate and the case of a cooperative member’s charge among the above written consent is indicated as the presumption of proportional rate of 109.6%.

1. Table II. Details of the consent contained in the main text. 1. Establishment and improvement project. ① A summary of design outline and details of the construction outline of a new building; red-type housing rearrangement project ( Address 18 omitted); 19,246,00 square meters of the total site area of the third-class general residential area located in the district of the first-class general residential area; 1,970 square meters of 595.92 square meters of 17,276.0 square meters of 276.00 square meters; 3,020.82 square meters of 913.79 square meters of 913.79 square meters in total, 115.45 square meters in 15.32 square meters in 117.32 square meters in 197.38 square meters in 298.45 square meters in 205.74 square meters in 294.97 square meters in 205.484.97 square meters in 204.7.94.7

3) As the Urban Improvement Act was amended by Act No. 9632, Apr. 22, 2009, Article 30-2, which is a provision on the duty to construct rental housing in housing reconstruction projects, was deleted, and Article 78 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, which is a provision on the duty to construct rental housing in housing reconstruction projects, can be constructed up to the maximum floor area ratio under the improvement plan after deliberation by the local urban planning committee, and in such case, Article 30-3, which is a provision on the duty to build small housing in a certain ratio, was newly established. Accordingly, the committee of promotion of this case requested the Defendant to change the floor area ratio from 250% to 30% in order to improve business feasibility, and the Defendant requested the Urban Planning Committee of Seoul Special Metropolitan City to deliberate on the plan around July 6, 2011, but the said committee rejected this. Meanwhile, the aforementioned “Scar,” on the one hand, the main contents of the proposed legal floor area ratio of the housing reconstruction zone and the proposed plan.”

- 1.68% floor area 1.68% 249.83% of total floor area 73,115.45cm 80,693.27m27), 7,57.82 height / 249.82 19-28 surface area of 30,246.0m2, 19.00 - 19,246.00m28,000 - 1.68m28,000,000 - 7,000 7,57.82m2 / 19-28,000,000 - 19,000,000 - 30,000,000 - 40,000,000 - 15,000 - 28,000 m25,000 - 184,06365 m2636.6

4) On June 8, 2011, the instant promotion committee sent notice (No. 30) as follows to the owners of land, etc. in the instant improvement zone.

The committee of promoters, which included in the main text, responded to the number of 00 square meters for the past 20 billion won, but the wrong information about the number of owners of land, etc. has the obligation to know about this 40 billion won. First, the designation of the reconstruction improvement zone in Korea was publicly announced on September 7, 2006 by the Seoul Metropolitan Government Notice No. 2006-312, and the subsequent approval for the establishment, construction review, project implementation authorization, etc. will not be conducted. In particular, the association is the subject of deliberation to obtain project implementation authorization from the association, and it would be possible to receive 00 million won construction deliberation if the association did not establish. It would be 0 billion won if the number of owners of land, etc. and the association would be 50 billion won, and it would be more than 00 million won if the association were to undertake the designation of the improvement zone.

5) On July 6, 2011, the instant promotion committee rejected a proposal for relaxing the floor area ratio by holding a meeting on August 20, 201, and passed a plan (draft) with 250% floor area ratio and a rough project plan (draft). On August 23, 2011, the instant promotion committee sent to the owners of land, etc. in the instant improvement zone a notice stating the project implementation process, amendment of the Urban Improvement Act related to the floor area ratio, construction plan, etc. (Evidence A26). The main contents are as follows.

This construction plan plan is a basic plan to establish a plan, and to revise and develop in order to improve the feasibility of construction and to improve the quality of a complex. The number of households in each outline and each square are as follows, referring to attached data 2: * the size of 19,246.00 square meters (5,821.92 square meters) of site size 17,246.00 square meters (5,216.92 square meters) of land size 17,246.00 square meters (5,95.93 square meters) of rearrangement infrastructure size 1,970.00 square meters (5.93 square meters) of total floor size 65,18.98 square meters (19,719.67 square meters) above ground size 43,361.98 square meters (13,17.00 square meters) above ground size 19,246.16.74 square meters below ground size 28.46.75 square meters below ground size (201.74.6.1.64) of 7.7.7.642

6) On December 14, 2013, the Intervenor Union held an extraordinary general meeting and presented the case of approval of the modification of the rearrangement plan as an agenda item, and the main contents thereof are as follows.

An increase or decrease in the designation of an improvement zone on September 12, 201, which is included in the main text, 19,246.00 square meters 19,246.00 square meters in the area of a site (an area) 19,246.00 square meters - 65,23.00 square meters in total area (an area of 73,115.45 square meters) 7,82.45 square meters in total 43,160.43, 46.63 square meters in total, 25.37 square meters in total (per 249.83% in total), 249.83% in total, 249.98% in total (per 250%) in total (per 20.70% in total) 40.37% in rental housing (per 20.70% in total) in 20.38% in total) 203 square meters in total (per 40.30.20% in total (per 20.38).20.20).3

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 1, 2, 24, 25, 26, 30, 70, Eul's 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) As to the first argument

Article 24(1) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that a general meeting consisting of members of a cooperative shall be established. Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that each of the following matters shall undergo a resolution by the general meeting. Paragraph (5) of the same Article provides that where a general meeting makes a resolution, at least 10/100 of the members shall be present at the general meeting, and at least 20/100 of the members shall be present at the general meeting, and at least 20/100 of the members shall be present at the general meeting, where the general meeting, the project implementation plan, and the management and disposal plan shall be formulated or amended. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the members (including agents) who attend the general meeting, even after submitting a written resolution in advance, fall under “members who attend the general meeting” under Article 2

① Article 24(5) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that “The procedures, timing, method, etc. of convening a general meeting shall be stipulated by the articles of association.” However, as amended by Act No. 9729 on May 27, 2009, it added the phrase “if a general meeting makes a resolution, at least 10/100 of the union members shall attend directly” to the effect that “if a general meeting makes a resolution, at least 10/100 of the union members shall attend directly” was amended by Act No. 11293 on February 1, 2012, Article 24(5) of the same Act, stating that “at least 20/100 of the union members shall attend directly in cases of a general meeting, such as an inaugural general meeting, a project implementation plan, and a management and disposition plan, shall be determined by the articles of association.” In other words, the above provision appears to have been amended to have been made only when a union member attends the general meeting in order to ensure the operation of the previous general meeting without holding.

② If a general meeting is held in reality due to a certain number of members present at the general meeting and a discussion on the agenda items, etc., the legislative intent as above is achieved, and it does not mean that a member requires a direct exercise of voting rights beyond the actual attendance under Article 24(5) of the Urban Improvement Act. In addition, the above provision only provides that “at least 10/100 or 20/100 of the members of the union shall be directly present at the meeting,” and it does not provide that “at least 10/100 or 20/100 of the members of the union shall be directly present at the meeting and shall directly participate

③ According to the Plaintiffs’ opinions, even if multiple partners attend a general meeting, if the number of union members, other than those who submit a written resolution, falls short of 10/100 or 20/100 of the total number of union members, making it impossible to make a resolution at the general meeting. This does not accord with the purport of Article 24(5) of the Urban Improvement Act. Ultimately, even if a written resolution is submitted in advance, it is deemed “direct union members who attend the general meeting” under the above provision as long as they are present at the general meeting (the written resolution may be withdrawn and the voting right may be exercised directly), and it is only a matter of caution to avoid exercising voting rights

④ Even if not only the person who has participated in the general meeting but also the person who has participated in the resolution falls under “members who have attended the general meeting” under Article 24(5) of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, in light of the purport of the above provision, the said written resolution in this case shall be deemed to be “members who have attended the general meeting” and the said 17 members who have attended the general meeting shall be deemed to be “members who have attended the general meeting.” This is because it is reasonable to view that the submission of written resolution and the attendance at the general meeting as a whole were made by attending the general meeting and making a resolution on the grounds that they had already participated in the resolution through a written resolution.

2) As to the second argument

A) As to the assertion that the instant provision exceeded the bounds of delegated legislation, and that it violates the principle of statutory reservation and the principle of equality

In light of the following circumstances, the provision of this case does not exceed the limit of delegated legislation, or does not violate the principle of statutory reservation and the principle of equality. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(1) The Enforcement Decree or the Enforcement Rule of the Act cannot change or supplement the legal rights and obligations of an individual unless otherwise delegated by the Act or prescribe new matters that are not prescribed by the Act. However, the legislative purport of the Act or the Enforcement Rule of the Act is merely to stipulate the possibility of interpretation of the mother Act through organic and systematic examination of the whole of the legislative purport of the Act and the provisions related thereto, or is to specify them based on the purport of the provisions of the mother Act, it cannot be deemed null and void even if there is no provision directly entrusting the same with the mother Act. In addition, determination of whether there is delegation by the Act, other than the form and content of the direct delegation provision, the overall structure, purport, and purpose of the Act should also be also considered (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du15640, Oct. 27, 2011). Since the Act does not provide for the withdrawal of consent from the owner of a plot of land, etc. to the extent that it is difficult for the owner of a plot of land, etc. to freely withdraw from the consent, it cannot be deemed to include “the method of statutory consent” in accordance with the Act.

② Although the requirements for consent of the owners of lands, etc. at the time of applying for authorization to establish a housing reconstruction project are about matters affecting the rights and obligations of the owners of lands, etc., such consent requirements are not procedural requirements for prior control of the owners of lands, etc. regarding the application for authorization to establish a housing reconstruction project, and cannot be deemed as basic and essential matters concerning the rights and obligations of the owners of lands, etc., and thus, they cannot be deemed as an area where

③ Since the consent to establish an association and the withdrawal of such consent are not identical in nature, even if the provision of this case limits only the withdrawal of consent, such circumstance alone cannot be said to contravene the principle of equality.

B) As to the assertion that the “a summary of the design of a building to be constructed” stated in the written consent has been modified

In light of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire arguments, i.e., ① the size of the site before change, total floor area, floor area ratio, building-to-land ratio, households, etc. indicated in the change of the improvement plan proposed to the special meeting of December 14, 2013 are the same as the details stipulated at the time the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor designates and publicly notifies the rearrangement zone as the housing reconstruction zone under Article 206-312 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City public notice, and the consent form prepared by the committee of promoters based on the above improvement plan. ② The above "Scark is determined on the legal basis of the area ratio of the housing reconstruction zone" as stated in the Act on 19632, the Act on 209 to newly construct the housing reconstruction zone and to revise the building volume ratio and building volume ratio of small and medium housing construction regulations, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the consent form of the previous committee of the owners of the land, etc. under the social norms to be modified.

3) As to the third argument

On the other hand, as seen earlier, the committee of promotion of this case did not change the “a summary of the design of the building to be constructed” after demanding written consent, so this part of the plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit without further review.

4) As to the fourth argument

On April 22, 2009, the Urban Improvement Act was amended by Act No. 9632 on April 22, 2009, to delete the provisions on the construction obligation of rental housing in the housing reconstruction project, to be constructed in excess of the legal maximum floor area ratio under the improvement plan after deliberation by the local urban planning committee, but to be newly established Article 30-3, which is a provision that requires the construction of small-sized housing in a certain ratio, the promotion committee of this case requested the defendant to change the floor area ratio to 300% in order to improve the business feasibility. Accordingly, the defendant requested for deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee of Seoul Special Metropolitan City by preparing the "Determination on the legal floor area ratio scheduled for the housing reconstruction zone" around June 201, and the plaintiffs' request for deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee of Seoul Special Metropolitan City cannot be deemed defective due to the circumstance that the plaintiffs asserted by the plaintiffs does not have any defect in the procedure of draft

5) As to the fifth argument

In light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the facts as seen earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., the proportion ratio is mentioned in the legal consent stipulated in the Urban Improvement Act, and the consent form drafted by the committee of promotion of this case from the landowners or building owners in the instant rearrangement zone is the legal consent stipulated in the Urban Improvement Act, and ii) the proportion ratio stated in the instant consent form is not definite, but is merely presumed, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the committee of promotion of this case has manipulated the presumption of proportion, the mere fact that the plaintiffs asserted, cannot be said to have defects in the procedures for demanding the consent form. Accordingly, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is

6) As to the fifth argument

(1) As to the argument on ①

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in evidence Nos. 48 and 49, in the case of ( Address 19 omitted), land and its ground buildings ( Address 20 omitted), ( Address 14 omitted), and ( Address 15 omitted), it is recognized that the defendant did not include some of co-owners in the number of consenters in the disposition of this case. Thus, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

B) As to the argument

(1) Article 17(1) of the Act provides that the method of consent of the owners of land, etc. shall be determined by the method of written consent using a certificate of seal imprint and attaching a certificate of personal seal imprint with respect to the method of consent of the owners of land, etc., and the same shall apply to the method of obtaining consent from the owners of land, etc. on or before August 2, 2012. Article 17(1) of the Act provides that where consent is obtained from the owners of land, etc. on or after February 1, 2012, a copy of identification card is attached instead of a certificate of personal seal imprint, and a written consent is affixed with a seal imprint affixed and signed with a seal imprint affixed. Article 4 of the Act provides that the same shall apply to the portion that first obtains consent from the owners of land, etc. after the enforcement of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions”). On or after August 2, 2012.

B. The written evidence No. 51 reveals that the written consent submitted by Nonparty 4, the owner of the land, was sealed and written, and the copy of Nonparty 4’s resident registration certificate was attached. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the time when the promotion committee of this case submitted the above written consent from Nonparty 4 was after August 2, 2012 (the Defendant cannot determine whether the above written consent was applied to Article 17(1) of the amended Act on the Method of Consent because the accurate date was not stated in the written supplementary document as of June 12, 2014, and it cannot be denied the validity of the written consent amended on the ground that it was not written on the date of preparation, and the above written consent cannot be denied because it did not have the method of consent. Accordingly, the Defendant’s consent should be excluded from the person who consented to this case’s disposition.

(3) through (9) and (1) The allegation shall be made.

(1) According to Article 17(2) of the Act and Article 28(1)2(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, when calculating land owners, etc. who consent to establish an association, one representative of the owners shall be calculated as the owners of land, etc., if the ownership or sectional ownership belongs to several co-owners. Article 28(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the method and procedure of appointing one of the co-owners as the representative does not have any special restrictions on the method and procedure of appointing one of the co-owners as the representative. Thus, if one of the co-owners shares the real estate incorporated in an improvement zone and selects one of them as the representative, a copy of the identification card of the representative and other co-owners shall not be attached to the written consent of the representative. On the other hand, if all co-owners submit written consent, it shall be deemed valid even if they did not select one of them as the representative (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da851050, Feb. 29, 2010).

In full view of the purport of oral proceedings, Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, the representative of Nonparty 2, Nonparty 5, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 6, and Nonparty 1, the co-owners of the land and the building on its ground, affixed the seals to Nonparty 8, which are the representative of the representative of the association. Nonparty 2, Nonparty 6, Nonparty 6, the representative of Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 6, the other co-owners of the land and the building on its ground, affixed the seals to the consent form. Nonparty 14 and Nonparty 15, the other co-owners of the land and the building on their ground, omitted the consent form. Nonparty 6, the other co-owners of the land and the other co-owners’ consent form. Nonparty 6, the other co-owners’ consent form were omitted. Nonparty 6, the other co-owners’ consent form were omitted. Nonparty 6, the other co-owners’ consent form were also omitted. Nonparty 18, Nonparty 19, and Nonparty 17, the other co-owners’ consent form were omitted.

(D) As to the assertion

In full view of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 59, it is recognized that the non-party 39, the owner of the ground ground No. 101, attached a seal imprint and attached a certificate of personal seal impression, submitted a written consent at least twice in 2011. After signing on September 26, 2012, the non-party 39, the owner of the ground No. 101, the above ground ground ground No. 101, submitted a written consent. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the consent of the non-party 39 regarding the establishment of the intervenor association was valid around 201. Accordingly, the defendant's measure calculated by the consent of the non-party 39 is justifiable, and the plaintiffs' assertion in this part is without merit

(E) As to the assertion

(1) Article 17(1) of the former Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012) provides that the consent to the establishment of an association shall be obtained by means of a written consent using a seal imprint, and a certificate of personal seal impression shall be attached thereto. However, Article 28(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that a foreigner may sign a written consent and attach a certificate of foreign registration.

In full view of the written evidence No. 61 and the purport of the argument as a whole, Nonparty 26, the owner of the above ground No. 26, who is the owner of the above ground No. 25, ( Address 24 omitted), ( Address 25 omitted), and ( Address 26 omitted), is the person who acquired permanent residence in Canada. Nonparty 26, who signed the instant promotion committee on September 28, 201 and submitted a written consent accompanied by a signature and a copy of the passport. In light of the fact that the former Act and subordinate statutes, except for foreigners, puts a seal imprint and attach a certificate of personal seal impression in principle, and Nonparty 26 did not attach a certified copy of a Korean national residing abroad, which can be issued only by the foreigner, the above written consent cannot be deemed null and void. Accordingly, it should be excluded from the number of consenters calculated by the Defendant at the time of the instant disposition.

(f) As to the assertion

In full view of the written evidence No. 63, it is recognized that the written consent was submitted on July 12, 201 by the non-party 71, the owner of the land and the building on its ground, and the written consent on July 12, 2011. The above written consent was indicated as “the conditions to purchase at the association after the selection of the contractor.” The non-party 71 died, and only the non-party 72 among the non-party 72, the non-party 73, and the non-party 74 among the non-party 71’s co-inheritors, the non-party 71’s consent on the establishment of the intervenor association was effective on July 12, 2011 (the above written consent cannot be deemed null and void merely on the ground that the non-party 71 consented to the establishment of the association, and the non-party 71’s consent was not deemed to have been calculated as the non-party 71’s consent to the establishment of the association.

G) As to the argument

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 65, No. 65, and No. 4, Nonparty 32, the owner of the land, is recognized as having attached a seal imprint and submitted a written consent accompanied by the certificate of seal imprint to the Promotion Committee of this case on March 25, 2011. Thus, the defendant's measures calculated as the consent holder of Nonparty 32 are lawful, and the plaintiffs' assertion in this part is without merit.

H) Whether the consent rate for the establishment of a housing reconstruction association is satisfied

The Defendant, at the time of the instant disposition, deemed that 101 of the 132 landowners or building owners in the instant rearrangement zone agreed to the consent. As seen earlier, when calculating the consent rate except Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 26, the consent rate is 75% with the consent of 99 persons. Thus, the consent rate requirement under Article 16(3) of the Urban Improvement Act is satisfied.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Ba-hee (Presiding Judge)

Judges are unable to sign and seal by reason of a judge's main official leave.