Plaintiff 1 and five others (Law Firm Hongju, Attorney Lee Sang-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor (Law Firm New Daily, Attorneys Lee Han-hun, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Dong 3 District Housing Reconstruction Project Association

December 9, 2009

1. The Defendant’s disposition to designate an improvement zone for Samsung-dong Housing Reconstruction Project under the Daejeon Metropolitan City Notice No. 2009-50 on February 27, 2009 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the intervenor joining the lawsuit, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In order to establish the Master Plan for Urban and Residential Environment Improvement concerning Daejeon Metropolitan City 202 regions, 11.72 km from April 2005 to April 2006, the Defendant prepared the Master Plan for Urban and Residential Environment Improvement from March 27, 2006 to April 3, 2006, followed the procedures for resident inspection of the above Basic Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “Basic Plan for Urban and Residential Environment Improvement”). On April 25, 2006, the Defendant established the Master Plan for Urban and Residential Environment Improvement (hereinafter referred to as the “Master Metropolitan City’s Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Plan”) through the procedures for hearing the City’s opinions on April 25, 2006, and publicly announced the “Seoul Metropolitan City’s Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Plan” as the Daejeon Metropolitan City Notice No. 2006-30, Jun. 30, 2006.

B. On February 27, 2009, the Defendant, in accordance with the above residential environment improvement plan, designated the Dong-dong Samsung-dong, Daejeon, which is an area included in the maintenance plan, as a rearrangement zone, 126,534 square meters per day (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”). The Defendant publicly announced the said disposition as prescribed in Article 209-50 of the Notice of Daejeon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and the books publicly notified by the Defendant during the instant disposition, as “instant publicly notified books”).

C. The plaintiffs are those who own land located in the rearrangement zone of this case, such as attached Form 1.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) In order to designate a rearrangement zone pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the requirement that “at least 2/3 of the number of buildings in the relevant zone and at least 15 years old and inferior buildings are at least 1/2 of the buildings in the relevant zone, and at least 3/10 of the number of buildings in the relevant zone shall be met.” However, in this case, the Defendant did not investigate whether the removal is inevitable, but did not simply consider all the buildings for which 20 years have elapsed since their completion as old and inferior buildings, and was subject to the disposition of this case on the premise that it was unlawful.

2) In the instant improvement zone, three multi-unit houses and 15 multi-household houses are located within the instant improvement zone, and in accordance with the relevant statutes, the above multi-unit houses should undergo safety diagnosis and designate the improvement zone. However, the Defendant was unlawful without conducting safety diagnosis on the above multi-unit houses.

3) In the instant case, the Defendant received a proposal from the residents to designate a member of the instant rearrangement zone as an urban and residential environment improvement zone, and issued the instant disposition. The former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9444, Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”) did not provide that the designation of a rearrangement zone may be made through the residents’ proposal, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

[Attachment 2] The entry of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the assertion that there is an error in the calculation of old and poor buildings

(3) According to the provisions of Article 10 (1) [Attachment Table 1] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2145, Apr. 21, 2009; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”), the defendant and the same Metropolitan City Mayor shall establish a basic plan for urban and residential environment improvement including specific matters on a ten-year basis; within the extent consistent with the above basic plan, buildings with 200 or more buildings or with 10,00 square meters of their site area which are owned by 1/3 or more of the number of buildings located in the relevant area; buildings with worn-out and inferior or 1/2 or more of the number of buildings constructed under the provisions of Article 4 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents; buildings which are constructed under the provisions of Article 10 (1) [Attachment Table 1].

A residential environment improvement project is a project implemented to improve the residential environment in an area where urban low-income urban residents reside collectively and where the infrastructure for rearrangement is extremely poor and the old and inferior buildings are excessively concentrated pursuant to the purpose of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions (Article 1) to contribute to the improvement of urban environment and the quality of residential life by prescribing matters necessary to restore urban functions or efficiently improve old and inferior residential buildings (Article 2 subparagraph 2 (a) of the former Act). In this case, the project implementer is scheduled to implement a method to preferentially supply housing to the owners of the land, etc. after acquiring all or part of a rearrangement zone under Article 38 of the Urban Improvement Act (Article 6 (1) 2 of the former Act). However, even if urban low-income urban residents reside in a group, and implement a residential environment improvement project in an area where the infrastructure for rearrangement is extremely poor and poor and the old and inferior buildings are excessively concentrated, the implementation of a residential environment improvement project should be implemented in compliance with the purpose of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, and the implementation of a residential Environment Improvement Project should be reasonably determined against their intent and the landowner’s.

However, in full view of the statements and the purport of the whole arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including each number, if any), the documents recording the contents deliberated by the Joint Committee on the Improvement Plan of Daejeon Metropolitan City prior to the disposition of this case by the Joint Committee on the Improvement Plan of Daejeon Metropolitan City on the establishment of the Rearrangement Zone and the designation of the Rearrangement Zone (hereinafter referred to as the "Adjustment Zone") shall deliberate on the fact that there is 84.0% of old and inferior buildings in the rearrangement zone of this case, and attached a photograph of the house in the rearrangement zone of this case, and the notice of this case may be recognized as having stated that "the old and inferior buildings in this case were 2/3 or more of old and inferior buildings in the rearrangement zone of this case" in the notice of this case. However, it is insufficient to find that the defendant, while making the disposition of this case, based on the objective data secured by the separate investigation process about whether the buildings in this case are old and inferior buildings in the rearrangement zone of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the disposition of this case.

According to Article 2 subparagraph 3 (c) of the former Act and Article 2 (2) subparagraph 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, the defendant, as a matter of course, must be calculated as old and inferior buildings in the case of buildings for which 20 years have passed after completion. In the case of this case, since the buildings for which 20 years have passed after completion are 84%, the disposition of this case is legally made in accordance with relevant

Article 2 subparag. 3 (c) of the former Act and Article 2(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas shall be calculated on the basis of the period after the completion of the building, as alleged by the Defendant. However, Article 2(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that "a building for which 20 years (where a City/Do municipal ordinance prescribes 20 years or more after its completion (where such 20 years or more, 20 years or more, 20 years or more) have passed" shall be deemed an old and inferior building under Article 2 subparag. 3 (c) of the former Act. However, according to Article 3(2) of the former Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Ordinance"), a building completed on or after January 1, 1995 shall be deemed as a 30-year old and inferior building, and it shall be deemed as a 10-year old and inferior building for 20 years or more.

2) Sub-committee

As seen earlier, the instant disposition was erroneous in the calculation of old and inferior buildings, and thus, it was unlawful without any further determination on the remainder of the Plaintiff’s remaining assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Shin Young-sik (Presiding Judge)