Plaintiff 1 and 10 (Attorney Park Sung-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

2. The establishment promotion committee of the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Song-sop et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

November 22, 2010

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2009Guhap39735 decided May 20, 2010

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

On February 26, 2008, the decision that the approval of the committee of promoters for the establishment of the redevelopment project for housing in the 2008-2 financing promotion zone is invalid.

2. Purport of appeal

It is so decided as per Disposition.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Based on Article 10 (1) of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Balanced Regional Development Support, the head of the Seoul Metropolitan Government designated and publicly announced the area as a three-dimensional new town district with the same 1,001,473 square meters (see attached drawings 1) located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government No. 1706-38, Jan. 26, 2006, as the Seoul Metropolitan Government Notification No. 2006-38, and designated and publicly announced the area as an urban renewal acceleration district under Article 5 of the Special Act on the Promotion of Urban Renewal on Oct. 19, 2006.

B. On June 8, 2007, the Mayor of Seoul Metropolitan Government issued an urban renewal acceleration plan public announcement (hereinafter “instant public announcement”) under Article 207-458 of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public announcement (hereinafter “instant public announcement”). According to the public announcement in the instant case, the urban renewal acceleration district was divided into eight promotion areas, including the two texts and insignias from 1 to 7, and the promotional zone of the urban renewal acceleration district, and the location of each promotion district was indicated generally (see attached Form 2).

C. On June 14, 2007, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City changed the area of an urban renewal acceleration district to 1,001,473 square meters from 1,01,473 square meters and designated and publicly announced as 1,014,313 square meters. On January 7, 2008, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City changed the area of an urban renewal acceleration district from 1,014,313 square meters to 1,013,398 square meters and publicly announced the determination of an urban renewal acceleration plan and the preparation of topographic drawings (hereinafter “instant urban renewal acceleration plan”).

라. 이 사건 재정비촉진계획에 따르면, 재정비촉진지구는 촉진구역 7개와 존치구역으로 나뉘는데, 촉진구역 중 하나인 이문2재정비촉진구역(이하 ‘이 사건 사업시행구역’이라 한다)은 서울 동대문구 이문동 170-3 일대 98,497㎡(별지 도면 3의 ㉠㉤㉥부분)를 사업시행구역으로 하고 있다.

마. 한편 (가칭) 이문3동 256번지 일대 (뉴타운) 주택재개발정비사업 조합설립추진위원회(이하 ‘가칭 추진위원회’라 한다)는 주식회사 클럽코리아, 주식회사 드빌디엠씨 등과 추진위원회 설립동의서 징구업무를 대행하는 용역계약을 체결하고, 이문·휘경 3차 뉴타운지구로 지정·고시된 부분 중 207,940.90㎡를 임의로 사업구역으로 지정(별지 도면 3의 ㉠㉡㉢㉣부분)하여 그 사업부지 내 토지등소유자 1,212명으로부터 동의서(이하 ‘이 사건 동의서’라 한다)를 징구하였다.

F. In addition, the promotion committee requested consent without attaching a list of the promotion committee members to leave the list as a disturbance, and only when applying for approval of the promotion committee of this case, attached a list of the promotion committee members.

G. When the project implementation district of this case became final and conclusive in accordance with the renewal acceleration plan of this case, the provisional name promotion committee approved the establishment of 387 consent letter of the owner of the land, etc., which corresponds to the above project implementation district (hereinafter “the consent person of this case”) on January 8, 2008 and applied for approval for establishment of an association establishment promotion committee (hereinafter “approval disposition of this case”) among the total 769 owners of land, etc. in the above zone, on February 26, 2008, on the ground that the defendant obtained 387 consent (50.32 percent consent rate) from among the total 769 owners of land, etc. in the above zone (hereinafter “the consent person of this case”).

I. Of the 387 consenters, 347 others submitted a written consent prior to the date of public inspection and announcement, and the remaining 40 persons submitted a written consent prior to the determination of the urban renewal acceleration plan of this case after the date of public inspection and announcement.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 5, 6, 7, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 14 to 17, Eul evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 11, 12, Eul evidence 14 to 17, Eul evidence 21 (including each number, if any), Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 21, Eul evidence 14 to 17, Eul evidence 21 (including each number, if any), the testimony by non-party 1 of the first instance trial witness, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the approval disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the approval disposition of this case constitutes a valid and void disposition on the ground that there are serious and clear defects as follows.

(1) Since the project implementation district established voluntarily by the tentative name promotion committee and the project implementation district of this case determined and publicly announced as an urban renewal acceleration plan through the public inspection of this case have an essential difference between the area and the number of the owners of the land, etc., if the consent to the project area of this case was drafted prior to the public inspection of this case and the consent without validity is excluded, the consent ratio of the owners of the land, etc. to the composition of the promotion committee does not exceed 50%, there is a significant and apparent defect in the approval disposition

Shebly named promotion committee has significant and apparent defects without obtaining lawful consent of the owners of lands, etc. of the promotion committee composed of not less than five promotion committee members including the chairperson of the promotion committee, by collecting written consent by omitting a list of promotion committee in the written consent of this case.

Secondly, the Defendant issued the instant approval to the Intervenor despite the fact that there was an application for approval under the name of the promotion committee, and the tentative name promotion committee and the Intervenor promotion committee cannot be deemed the same organization because they were different in all aspects such as the name of the promotion committee and the scope of the project area, the number of owners of land, etc., and the organization of the promotion committee. Thus, the instant approval disposition was erroneous in

Applicant 153 of the owners of land, etc. who submitted the instant written consent withdrawn their consent prior to the instant approval disposition, and 41 of them sent a written withdrawal of consent accompanied by a certificate of personal seal impression to the Defendant even after the instant approval disposition, the Defendant calculated the consent rate by including all the owners of land, etc. who withdrawn consent as above.

(v)in calculating the number of owners of land, etc. at the time the Promotion Committee demands the instant written consent, the following errors are found, and the consent ratio is not more than 50 per cent, and the instant approval disposition is unlawful.

① The non-party 2 and 3 are co-owners of the land (number 1 omitted) and were treated as consenters. The non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the land should own the non-party 1.

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table shall be as follows.

(c) Markets:

(i) Criteria for determining the invalidity of an administrative disposition

In order for an administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, it is insufficient to say that there is an illegality in the disposition, and that the defect is objectively obvious because it violates the important part of the law. In determining the importance and clarity of the defect, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law shall be examined from a teleological perspective, and at the same time, reasonable consideration shall be made on the specificity of the specific case. In addition, in a case where an administrative disposition was rendered by applying a certain provision to a certain legal relation or factual relationship, notwithstanding the absence of room for dispute over the interpretation of the law, the legal principles clearly stating that the provision of the law cannot be applied to the legal relation or factual relationship, and thus, if there is room for dispute over the interpretation of the provision of the law, the defect is significant and obvious, but even if the administrative disposition was erroneously interpreted, it cannot be said that it is evident that there is a mistake as to the fact that the administrative disposition was not subject to the administrative disposition, and it cannot be said that there is an objective circumstance to mislead it as the object of the disposition.

In addition, the approval disposition of this case is limited to the reason that the application for approval of the committee for the provisional name approval obtained consent from a majority of the owners of land, etc., and even if there were some errors in calculating the fixed number of owners of land or the number of consent at the time of the defendant's approval disposition of this case, if the application for approval of the intervenor committee at the time of the

The validity of the written consent drafted prior to the designation of the Do governor Maintenance Area

Article 13(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 945, Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”) provides that “where an association is to be established pursuant to paragraph (1) of this Article, the area of the relevant rearrangement zone shall be 0 or more members, including the chairperson, and the committee for promotion of the housing reconstruction project under Article 12(5) shall be established with the consent of a majority of the owners of the relevant land, etc. within the 3-year rearrangement zone, and the consent of the committee for promotion of the rearrangement zone shall not be required by the head of the relevant Si/Gun, even if the area of the land, etc., for which the committee for promotion of the rearrangement zone was 5 or more different from that of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents of Land, etc., which was 1 or 3-year before the new rearrangement zone was established.”

【【Omission of List and Effect of Approval Disposition

According to Article 13(2) of the former Do Government Act, when an association comprised of owners of a plot of land, etc. intends to be established to implement a rearrangement project, it shall be organized with five or more members including the chairperson with the consent of 1/2 or more of the owners of the plot of land, etc., and according to each subparagraph of Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, a person who intends to obtain approval for establishment of the promotion committee shall submit an application for approval in attached Form 2 to the head of the relevant Si/Gun, along with written consent of the owners of the plot of land, etc., and documents evidencing the selection of members, etc. In addition, there is no special restriction on the form of the owners of the plot of land, etc., the chairperson of the promotion committee, and the method of selection of members of the promotion committee. The head of the relevant Si/Gun who has received an application for approval for establishment of the promotion committee is not obliged to obtain consent of 1/2 or more of the owners of the plot of land, etc., and it is also necessary to establish the promotion committee.

Therefore, even if the promotion committee omitted the list at the time of demanding the instant written consent, as well as the written consent of this case at the time of the application for the approval of this case, since the defendant attached a list of the promotion committee organization at the time of the application for the approval of this case, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a case where the consent of at least 1/2 of the owners of land, etc. was obtained as to the composition of the promotion committee at the time of the application for the approval of this case and the promotion committee was constituted by at least 5 promoters including the promotion committee chairperson, and it does not constitute a case where the consent

· Whether the promotion committee maintains its identity and its approval disposition

앞서 든 각 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 가칭 추진위원회는 이 사건 사업시행구역을 포함하는 이문·휘경 지역 일대가 뉴타운지구로 지정·고시되자 향후 정비구역이 지정될 경우 정비사업의 추진업무 등을 선점하기 위하여 미리 개략적인 사업구역을 획정하여(별지 도면 3의 ㉠㉡㉢㉣ 부분) 그 구역내 토지등소유자로부터 추진위원회 구성을 위한 동의서를 징구하기 시작한 점, ② 그 후 이 사건 공람공고와 재정비촉진계획 결정을 거치면서 이문2재정비촉진구역이 지정·고시되었는데(별지 도면 3의 ㉠㉤㉥ 부분), 위 재정비촉진구역은 당초 가칭 추진위원회가 획정하였던 사업구역과 일부 중복되었던 점, ③ 가칭 추진위원회는 아직 정비예정구역이나 정비구역이 지정되지 않은 기간 동안에는 가칭 추진위원회라는 명칭으로 활동을 하다가 이 사건 재정비촉진계획 결정을 통하여 정비구역이 지정·고시되면서 그 구역명이 ‘이문2재정비촉진구역’으로 확정되자 기존의 가칭을 버리고 참가인 추진위원회인 ‘이문2재정비촉진구역 주택재개발정비사업 조합설립추진위원회’라는 명칭을 사용하기에 이른 점 등에 비추어 보면, 비록 가칭 추진위원회가 획정한 사업구역 및 그 구역내 토지등소유자 수가 나중에 확정된 재정비촉진구역 및 그 구역내 토지등소유자 수와 상이하다고 하더라도, 가칭 추진위원회와 참가인 추진위원회는 그 정비사업의 기본내용, 추진위원회의 활동목적 등이 일치하고 포괄적·잠정적인 단체의 일부가 후에 구체적으로 확정되었다는 점에서 그 동일성이 유지되었다고 평가할 수 있고, 설사 그 동일성이 유지되지 못하였다고 할지라도 그로써 이 사건 승인처분이 무효로 되는 것은 아니라고 할 것이다.

(v) whether the intention to consent has been withdrawn;

Article 17 of the former Do Government Act and Article 28(1)5 and (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Do Government Act provide that even if the owner of a plot of land, etc. has already consented to the composition of a promotion committee, he/she may withdraw the existing consent before the promotion committee makes an application for approval to the competent authority, and that method requires that the promotion committee be made by means of written consent using a certificate of seal impression and attaching a certificate of seal impression thereto. Meanwhile, the former Do Government Act does not provide for the other party, etc. who is obliged to submit a certificate of consent. However, the previous Do Government Act does not provide for the withdrawal of consent according to the basic principle of declaration of intention to the other party to the consent, so in principle, the relevant promotion committee should submit a certificate of consent accompanied by a certificate of seal impression (Article 28(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Do Government Act amended on August 11, 2009 shall be sent to the other party to the consent or the head of the Si/Gun in accordance with the certificate of seal impression).

As to the instant case, comprehensively considering the purport of the entire argument in the statement of No. 11-1 to 153, it is acknowledged that 153 owners of lands, etc., including Nonparty 25, sent to Nonparty 26 the chairperson of the Promotion Committee’s tentative name from June 26, 2006 to December 13, 207, who had been prior to the application for the approval of the instant case, a certificate of personal seal impression was not attached to each owner of lands, etc. on the above content certification, but there is no evidence to prove that the actual certificate of personal seal impression was attached to the certificate of personal seal impression on the part of the owners of lands, etc., but there is no validity of the above withdrawal. Meanwhile, according to each statement of No. 13-1 to 41-2 of evidence No. 13, it is acknowledged that 41 owners of lands, etc., including Nonparty 20, submitted a certificate of personal seal impression to the Promotion Committee from 200 days to 208.

⑹ 토지등소유자 수 산정의 오류 여부와 승인처분의 효력

㈎ 판단순서

First of all, the approval disposition of this case is to examine whether specific defects alleged by the plaintiff exist and to determine whether the application for approval of the promotion committee for provisional name satisfies the requirements for consent of the majority.

㈏ 원고들의 각 주장에 관한 판단

① According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 11-1 and 2, Nonparty 2 and 3 are co-owners of the land (number No. 1 omitted), and Nonparty 3 independently owns (number No. 13 omitted) land and its ground buildings other than the above land, and it was separately calculated as one owner of the land, etc. at the time of the application for the approval of this case, and Nonparty 3 did not have any error in calculating the number of owners of the land, etc., on the other hand, since it is recognized that Nonparty

(2) In relation to the assertion, where several persons own a lot of land or a lot of buildings as in the case where A, B, C, D, and E own a lot of land or a lot of buildings, as in the case where several persons own a lot of land or a lot of buildings, the number of the owners of the land, etc. shall be calculated according to the form of their ownership, since the common ownership relationship between A, B, C, D, and E differs from the ownership. In the case of a lot of five parcels of land (number 2 omitted), including (number 3 omitted), lot number 3 omitted, (number 4 omitted), (number 5 omitted), (number 6 omitted), (number 2 omitted), among them (number 2 omitted), the land is owned by Nonparty 13, 12,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and the remaining lot of land is owned by the committee of promoters (number 4, 15, 198, 198, 27, 198, and 2).

③, ④, ⑤, ⑥ 주장과 관련하여, 1인이 하나 또는 다수의 부동산을 단독으로 소유하면서 다른 사람과 하나 또는 다수의 부동산을 공유하는 경우 단독으로 소유하는 부동산의 소유형태와 다른 사람과 공유하는 부동산의 소유형태가 다른 점에 비추어 토지등소유자도 별도로 인정하는 것이 원칙이라고 할 것이다. 그러나 ㉠ 부동산은 A가 단독으로 소유하고 ㉡ 부동산은 B가 단독으로 소유하며 ㉢ 부동산은 A와 B가 공유하는 경우와 같이 어느 공유부동산의 각 공유자들이 그 공유부동산 외에 각자 단독으로 소유하는 부동산이 있어 공유부동산에 관하여 토지등소유자가 인정되는지 여부와 관계없이 각자 토지등소유자의 지위가 인정되는 경우에 관하여 보건대, 위 경우에 대해서 3인의 토지등소유자를 인정한다면 다수의 부동산을 소유하는 1인이 2명 존재하는 경우(예를 들어 C는 ㉣ 부동산과 ㉤ 부동산을, D는 ㉥ 부동산과 ㉦ 부동산을 소유하는 경우)에 대해서 2인의 토지등소유자만이 존재하는 것( 구 도정법 시행령 제28조 제1항 제1호 다목 참조)과 비교하여 균형이 맞지 아니하고, 그러한 공유부동산에 관하여 토지등소유자를 별도로 인정하지 않는다고 하더라도 위 각 부동산에 관련된 소유자 내지 공유자들 중 토지등소유자의 지위가 인정되지 아니하는 불이익을 입는 사람은 없는 점 등에 비추어 그러한 경우에는 2인의 토지등소유자만을 인정하여야 할 것이다. 따라서 원고들의 ③ 주장의 경우 소외 14가 (지번 7 생략) 토지를, 소외 15가 (지번 8 생략) 토지를 각 단독으로 소유하면서 이와 별도로 (지번 9 생략) 토지를 공유하고 있어 그 소유형태가 다르다고 하더라도 이미 소외 14, 15가 각 토지등소유자의 지위를 인정받은 이상, ④ 주장의 경우 소외 2, 3이 (지번 1 생략) 토지를 공유하고 있고 그 지상 건물은 소외 2의 단독소유로써 토지와 건물의 소유형태가 다르다고 하더라도 이미 소외 2, 3이 각 토지등소유자의 지위를 인정받은 이상, ⑤ 주장의 경우 소외 16이 (지번 10 생략) 토지를, 소외 17이 (지번 11 생략) 토지를 각 소유하면서 그 지상 건물을 공유하고 있어 그 소유형태가 다르다고 하더라도 이미 소외 16, 17이 각 토지등소유자의 지위를 인정받은 이상, 별도로 각 1인의 토지등소유자 수를 추가할 필요는 없다고 할 것이다. 다만 ⑥ 주장의 경우 소외 18은 (지번 12 생략) 토지를 단독소유하면서 그 지상 건물을 소외 19와 공유하고 있어 그 소유형태가 다른데, 피고가 토지등소유자 수를 1인으로만 산정하였으므로 토지등소유자 1인을 추가하여야 할 것이다( 소외 18, 19는 추진위원회 구성에 동의하지 아니하였다).

⑦ 주장과 관련하여, 을나제20호증의 1, 2의 각 기재에 의하면 서울특별시는 종전에 추진위원회 설립승인의 경우 국·공유재산관리청은 토지등소유자 수의 산정에서 제외되는 것으로 자치구의 질의에 대하여 회신하여 왔으나 각 자치구에서 추진위원회 설립승인에 있어서 국·공유지를 서로 다른 방식으로 취급하여 업무를 처리하자, 2009. 3.경 ‘국·공유재산관리청에 대한 동의자 수 산정기준’을 정하여 그동안 서울특별시 질의회신의 입장대로 “추진위원회 설립승인시 국·공유재산관리청은 토지등소유자 총수에서 제외”하도록 규정하기에 이른 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로, 피고가 구 도정법 등 관계법령에 국·공유재산에 대한 동의 여부에 관하여 아무런 규정이 없는 상태에서 이 사건 사업부지 내에 있는 국·공유지의 재산관리청인 건설교통부, 동대문구, 서울시, 재정경제원 등을 토지등소유자에서 제외하였다고 하여 이를 위법하다고 할 수 없다. 나아가 ㉠ 국가 또는 지방자치단체의 경우 구 도정법 제17조 제1항 에서 정한 인감증명서를 첨부한 인감도장에 의한 서면동의 방식이 그대로 요구된다고 볼 수 없으므로 그 진의가 객관적으로 확인될 수 있는 상당한 방법으로 동의를 표시하면 족하다고 할 것인 점, ㉡ 구 도정법 제66조 제3항 은 정비구역 안의 국·공유재산은 정비사업 외의 목적으로 매각하거나 양도할 수 없다고 규정하고 있고, 같은 조 제4항 은 정비구역 안의 국·공유재산은 국유재산법 제9조 또는 지방재정법 제77조 의 규정에 의한 국유재산관리계획 또는 공유재산관리계획과 국유재산법 제43조 및 지방재정법 제61조 의 규정에 의한 계약의 방법에 불구하고 사업시행자 또는 점유자 및 사용자에게 다른 사람에 우선하여 수의계약으로 매각 또는 임대할 수 있다고 규정하고 있는 점, ㉢ 이 사건 승인처분의 처분청인 동시에 토지소유자인 서울특별시동대문구를 대표하는 지위도 겸한 피고로서는 이 사건 승인처분을 통하여 참가인 추진위원회의 구성에 동의한다는 의사를 표시한 것으로 볼 수 있는 점, ㉣ 이 사건 공람공고 및 재정비촉진계획 결정을 통한 정비예정구역 또는 정비구역의 지정·고시 당시 국유지가 그 대상에 포함되어 있음에도 국가가 소유한 토지의 재산관리청인 건설교통부, 재정경제원이 특별히 반대하는 의사를 표시하지 않았다면 당해 정비사업의 실시를 위한 조합설립에 동의한 것으로 볼 수 있는 점, ㉤ 도정법 제13조 제3항 에서 추진위원회의 구성에 동의한 토지등소유자는 특별히 반대의 의사표시를 하지 않는 한 조합의 설립에 동의한 것으로 본다고 규정함으로써 추진위원회의 구성에 관한 의사와 조합설립에 관한 의사가 원칙적으로 일치하는 것으로 이해되고, 정비구역 안의 국·공유지의 경우 그 관할청이 원칙적으로 조합설립에 동의한 것으로 본다면 추진위원회의 구성에 관하여도 동일하게 동의 의사를 추정하는 것이 일관성이 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 정비구역 내에 있는 국·공유지의 소유자인 국가(재산관리청: 건설교통부, 재정경제원)와 서울특별시동대문구, 서울특별시 등 3인은 각 해당 국·공유지를 포함하는 정비구역을 대상으로 하여 참가인 추진위원회를 구성하는 것에 동의하였다고 봄이 상당하다{이 사건 승인처분 당시 국유지에 대한 토지등소유자 수의 산정기준에 대한 명확한 규정이 없었으므로( 2010. 7. 15. 법률 제22277호로 개정된 도정법 시행령 제28조 제1항 제5호 에서 비로소 “국유지·공유지에 대해서는 그 재산관리청을 토지등소유자로 산정할 것”이라고 규정하였다) 그 산정기준이 문제되나, 도정법 소정의 토지등소유자의 개념은 원칙적으로 민법상 소유권자와 같다고 보아야 하는 점과 국유지의 재산관리청은 국유재산의 관리사무를 담당하는데 불과하고 그 소유권은 어디까지나 국가에 귀속되어 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 처분 당시에 국가가 재산관리청을 달리하여 정비구역 내에 수필지의 토지를 소유하고 있었다고 하더라도 도정법에 따른 토지등소유권자는 국가 1인으로 보아야 할 것이다}.

(8) As to the assertion, Article 2 subparag. 9 (a) and Article 19 (1) of the Act on the Establishment of Do Associations and the Establishment of Do Associations and the purport that the owners of the land or buildings located in the improvement zone or the persons holding superficies thereof shall be members of the redevelopment association. In principle, even if an unauthorized building should be removed in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, giving the owner the qualification of association members and allowing them to enjoy benefits from the implementation of the redevelopment project is not permissible. In order to implement the redevelopment project smoothly, there is no substantial need to regulate the construction of unauthorized housing indiscreet within the improvement zone. If the owners of the unauthorized building can be construed as the owners of the land, etc., under Article 2 subparag. 9 (a) of the Act on the Establishment of Do Associations and the Development of Redevelopment Associations and the Persons holding the Building without Permission, and it can be deemed that the two owners of the land or buildings were not entitled to consent to the exclusion of the owners of the land, etc. from the scope of land without permission under Article 2 subparag. 9 (a). 2).

㈐ 소결

As seen earlier, (6) The number of owners of lands, etc., who did not consent to the organization of the promotion committee according to the judgment of paragraph (6) increases, whereas (8) the number of owners of lands, etc., who did not consent to the organization of the promotion committee, reduces the number of owners of lands, etc., which did not consent to the organization of the promotion committee according to the judgment of paragraph (8). Accordingly, the consent ratio of the owners of lands, etc., as to the organization of the promotion committee, shall be deemed to have no change. (7) Rather, if it is deemed that the state/public land owner and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Dongdaemun-gu, and the consent of Seoul Special Metropolitan City is obtained according to the judgment of paragraph (7), the approval of this case

⑹ 소결론

Ultimately, in granting approval to the Intervenor, it cannot be deemed that there are significant and apparent defects in relation to the requisition of consent, attachment of a list of promoters, identity of promotion committee, withdrawal of consent, calculation of number of owners of land, etc. in granting approval to the Intervenor. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ claim based on the premise that the instant approval disposition is null and void as a matter of course is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is unfair with different conclusions, and it is so revoked and all of the plaintiffs' claims of this case are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judge Lee Ji-hun (Presiding Judge)