The method of litigation after a project implementation plan formulated by a housing reconstruction and improvement project association under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is finalized and announced through the approval and public notice of the project implementation plan (=appeal against the project implementation plan approved), and the method of seeking the suspension of administrative disposition or execution, procedure continuation, etc. subject to

A housing reconstruction and improvement project association under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8785 of Dec. 21, 2007) is a public corporation that implements a housing reconstruction project under the supervision of the competent administrative agency, and has the status of an administrative agency that performs certain administrative actions within the scope of its purpose as prescribed by law. A project implementation plan formulated by a reconstruction and improvement project association based on the above Act as an administrative agency's status constitutes a binding administrative disposition against the interested party, which is an independent administrative disposition. A project implementation plan formulated by the reconstruction and improvement project association based on the above Act as an administrative agency's status falls under the procedural requirements leading to the administrative disposition, and the resolution of the general meeting of the association on the project implementation plan is merely one of the procedural requirements leading to the administrative disposition. After the plan is finalized, it is allowed to file a lawsuit seeking the cancellation or invalidity of the plan by an appeal litigation, and on the other hand, it is not allowed to file a lawsuit seeking the suspension of its effect or execution, procedure, etc.

Article 16 (2) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8785 of Dec. 21, 2007)

Supreme Court Decision 92Ma54 Decided July 6, 1992 (Gong1992, 2511) Supreme Court Decision 2007Du16691 Decided January 10, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 237) Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da2428 Decided September 17, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1648)

[Defendant-Appellant] Re-Appellant (Attorney Park Chang-hoon et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Other 1 et al.

Seoul High Court Order 2008Ra1875 dated March 19, 2009

The order of the court below is revoked and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below rejected the application for a provisional disposition of this case which had been approved by the head of the competent Gu on June 12, 2003 by the data submitted on May 24, 2003 for the approval of the project implementation of the association's new construction project under the above revised project implementation plan to obtain the consent of the association members for the purpose of changing the outline of the design as stipulated in the second reconstruction project implementation plan in accordance with the contents of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City's public announcement on September 14, 2006, the association's new construction implementation plan of this case which was approved by the head of the competent Gu on June 26, 2004 as to the above provisional disposition of this case by the approval of the project implementation plan of this case, and the association's new construction implementation plan of this case which was approved by the approval of the new construction implementation plan of this case by the consent of 20% of the union members on the above revised project implementation plan of this case by the consent of 10% of the total project implementation plan and the reconstruction plan of this case.

However, a housing reconstruction project association under the Urban Improvement Act is a public corporation implementing a housing reconstruction project under the supervision of the competent administrative agency. The purpose of the project implementation plan of this case, which is established based on the Urban Improvement Act as an administrative agency, is to have the status of an administrative agency performing certain administrative actions within the scope of its purpose. The execution plan of this case, which is established based on the Urban Improvement Act as an administrative agency, becomes final and conclusive through the authorization and public notice, constitutes an independent administrative disposition against the interested party, and the general meeting resolution of the association regarding such a project implementation plan, is merely one of the procedural requirements leading to the administrative disposition. Since the plan becomes final and conclusive, it is only possible to seek the cancellation or invalidity of the plan through an appeal litigation, and it is not allowed to file a lawsuit seeking confirmation that only the part of the general meeting, which is a procedural requirement, is valid (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du1691, Jan. 10, 208; 2007Da2428, Sept. 17, 2009).

Therefore, in order to dispute the validity of the resolution of the general meeting of this case concerning the project implementation plan of this case which has already been made by the approval, etc. of the head of the competent Gu, only an appeal litigation for the cancellation of the project implementation plan or the confirmation of nullity thereof shall be allowed, and furthermore, in order to seek the suspension of its validity as a provisional disposition prior to the lawsuit on the merits, it shall be done by the method of applying for suspension of execution under the Administrative Litigation Act. On the premise that the validity of the resolution of the general meeting of this case can be asserted as a separate lawsuit on the grounds of defect in its contents, the order of the court below that held that the subsequent procedure pursuant to the resolution of this case and the authorization of the project implementation plan of this case may be claimed as a provisional

The ground of reappeal disputing this part of the judgment of the court below is with merit.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of reappeal, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)