Plaintiff 1 and three others (Law Firm Kang, Attorneys Jin-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Attorney Cho Nam-nam et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Private Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (Law Firm Squa Law, Attorneys Park Jong-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 22, 2011

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendant’s disposition of approving the establishment of an association against the Intervenor joining the Defendant on August 12, 2010 (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 5, 2009, the number of 33,593 square meters in the Dong-dong, Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (number 1 omitted) was designated and publicly announced as the one house reconstruction improvement zone (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”), and the Plaintiffs are the owners of buildings and their appurtenant land within the instant improvement zone.

B. On August 2, 2010, an intervenor filed an application with the Defendant for authorization to establish a housing reconstruction project within the instant project zone (hereinafter “application for authorization to establish the association of this case”). On August 12, 2010, the Defendant approved the establishment of the Intervenor’s association (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On August 12, 2010, 31 among 33 owners of land, etc. within the instant housing complex in the instant rearrangement zone and 176 owners of land or buildings in the area other than the housing complex (75.21%) among 234 owners of land or buildings in the area other than the housing complex, agreed to establish the Intervenor association and satisfied the consent rate under Article 16(2) and (3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

C. On December 5, 1995, and June 30, 1982, the Intervenor Union confirmed that the non-party 4’s owner of the land or building in the area which is not a housing complex died, but the non-party 5 died on June 30, 1982, but the inheritance registration was not completed. On September 29, 2010, the Intervenor Union requested the Defendant to fix the ratio of the property. On October 4, 2010, the Defendant changed the ratio of the consent of the owner of the land or building in the area which is not a housing complex from 75.21% to 75.86% (the consent of 176 out of 232).

D. After that, the Intervenor’s association amended its articles of association, and filed an application for authorization for the establishment of an association with the Defendant on the ground that five persons (including Nonparty 17, 18, 19, 20, 20, and 21 among the owners of the land or buildings in the area other than the housing complex (the Nonparty 20 among them submitted consent form as representative members after the application was filed for authorization for the establishment of the association of this case, and in the case of Nonparty 21, the consent form was submitted before the instant disposition was made, but the consent rate was omitted in calculating the consent rate was omitted) were additionally consented. On November 3, 2010, the Defendant modified the consent form of the owner of the land or building in the area other than the housing complex from 75.86% to 76.59% (the consent of 235, 180 among them).

[Ground for Recognition: The absence of dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3, 6, 7, Eul evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 9, 11-1 through 5, Eul evidence 10-1 through 5, Eul evidence 12 and 13-2, Eul evidence 12 and 13, Eul evidence 14 and 83, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

For the following reasons, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

1) Defect in the inaugural general meeting

An intervenor, at the time of holding an inaugural general meeting for establishing an association on August 1, 2010, prepared a written resolution without permission in the course of demanding written resolution from the owners of land, etc. in the instant improvement zone, and the owners of detached houses and commercial buildings in the instant improvement zone did not give opportunities to attend the inaugural general meeting.

2) Calculation of the consent rate for the establishment of the association

For the following reasons, no consent was obtained from at least 3/4 of the owners of land or buildings in an area other than a housing complex at the time of the instant disposition.

A) In calculating the consent rate for the instant disposition, there are 11 persons whose resident registration number is indicated in the land cadastre among 11 persons who were not computed in the number of owners of land or buildings due to the unknown whereabouts, and the Intervenor union did not sufficiently make efforts to grasp 11 land owners within the instant rearrangement zone. As such, the said 11 persons are not included in the number of owners of land or buildings even though the whereabouts of the 11 persons are not known under Article 28(1)4 of the Urban Improvement Act. On the other hand, six persons among the owners of land or buildings (excluding 10,11,12,13, 14, 15) were calculated in duplicate in the number of owners of land or buildings, and thus, the number of owners of land or buildings is 239 persons (234 persons + 11/6 persons).

B) Among the owners of the land or buildings that agreed to the establishment of the Intervenor’s association, six persons, including Nonparty 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, are calculated in duplicate by the number of consenters, must be excluded from the number of consenters.

C) The certificate of personal seal impression attached to the written consent of Nonparty 22, 23, 24, and 25 was issued before the designation of the rearrangement zone in this case, and since Nonparty 26’s written consent did not indicate the date of preparation, the above five written consent cannot be deemed to have been made based on the genuine intent, the above five written consent should be excluded from the number of consenters.

D) At the time of the application for authorization to establish the instant association, Nonparty 27 should be excluded from the number of consenters, even if Nonparty 27 and 20 were owned by Nonparty 27 at the time of Nonparty 2’s application for authorization.

E) Article 28(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas provides that state-owned and public land shall be treated equally to other real estate, and therefore, the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, the Korea Land Management Corporation, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the Korea Forest Service, which is the state-owned and public land management authority in the instant improvement zone, should be urged consent from them, but did not demand consent from them.

F) On July 14, 2010, prior to the application for authorization for the establishment of the instant association, Nonparty 6 submitted a written withdrawal of consent attached to the intervenor on July 14, 2010, and Article 28(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, which provides for the timing to withdraw consent, is invalid in deviation from the limit of delegated legislation, and thus, Nonparty 6 should be excluded from

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) As to the first argument

On August 1, 2010, the Intervenor prepared a written resolution without permission in the process of demanding a written resolution at the time when the Intervenor held an inaugural general meeting for establishing the association on August 1, 2010, or did not provide the owner of detached houses and commercial buildings within the instant improvement zone with an opportunity to attend the inaugural general meeting. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ above assertion is without merit.

2) As to the second argument

A) Whether the owner of the land or building is added

(1) Article 17 of the Act and Article 28(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act excludes the number of owners of land, etc. from the number of owners of land, etc. in calculating the consent rate for establishing an association under Article 17 of the Act and Article 28(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. In order to exclude them from the number of owners of land, etc., the resident registration number shall not be indicated at the time of entry as owners of land, etc.; ② the address indicated in the public book is different from the present address; ③ the address is not identified; ③ the land owner shall not be identified until the time of authorization for establishing an association; and ③ the purport that the above provision excludes the owners of land, etc. whose intention is difficult to confirm the consent of establishment of an association, etc.; or the mere fact that the whereabouts of the owners of land, etc. is not confirmed, the above provision must be strictly interpreted, and even if some of the co-owners is missing, if the remaining co-owners are not known, the remaining co-owners shall be determined whether they

(2) According to Nonparty 1’s 4-4-1-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-2-6-1-6-6-2-7-1-6-2-7-1-6-2-7-7-1-6-2-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-77-7-77-77-77-77-77-77-7-7-77-7-7

She also cannot be seen as including Nonparty 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 in the number of the owners of land or buildings in an area other than a housing complex in duplicate.

Article 28(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “The standard point of time to determine the illegality of an administrative disposition is not the market price of the judgment but the disposition is conducted.” Thus, the court may confirm the objective fact that existed at the time of the disposition by integrating not only the materials known to the administrative agency at the time of the administrative disposition, but also all the materials submitted at the time of the closing of arguments in the fact-finding proceedings (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu19033, May 27, 1993, etc.) and determine the illegality of the disposition based on such facts (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1903, May 27, 1993, etc.).”

However, even though Nonparty 4, the owner of land or building in an area which is not a housing complex in the rearrangement zone of this case, died on December 5, 1995, and Nonparty 5 died on June 30, 1982, the defendant was unable to confirm the existence or location of his heir, and the defendant did not know the death of the deceased Nonparty 4 and the deceased Nonparty 5 at the time of the disposition of this case, and was included in the number of the owners of the above land or building. Accordingly, according to the above facts of recognition, the deceased Nonparty 4 and the deceased Nonparty 5 should be excluded from the number of owners of the above land or building.

x) 235 persons (234 + 3 - 2 persons) if the number of owners of land or buildings in an area other than a housing complex is re-calculated according to the above recognition. Thus, the plaintiffs' above assertion is reasonable within the extent of recognition.

B) Whether the number of consenters calculated in duplicate is eligible

(1) According to Article 2 subparag. 9 (b) of the Act, “owner of land, etc.” in a housing reconstruction project is the owner of a building and its appurtenant land located within the rearrangement zone or an area other than the rearrangement zone. According to Article 17 of the same Act and Article 28(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the owner of a plot of land, etc. in a housing reconstruction project is the owner of a building and its appurtenant land prescribed by Presidential Decree, and the owner of a appurtenant, welfare facility and its appurtenant land located within the area other than the rearrangement zone. The consent of the owner of a plot of land, etc. in a housing reconstruction project shall be calculated as the owner of a plot of land, etc., who represents the number of the owners of a plot of land, if one person owns more than one ownership or sectional ownership, regardless of the number of ownership or sectional ownership. In light of the content and structure of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, one person for each piece of land and structure shall be calculated as the owner of a plot of land, etc., and if the same co-owner owns jointly own land or building.

(4) In fact, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 were owned by Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 2, each of the above 1, 2, or 1, 2, or 4-1 and 10-3, or 1 and 4-7, respectively, on the same land number of Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 2, each of which was owned by Nonparty 1 and 5-2, and were owned by Nonparty 1 and 5-2, and the same land number of Nonparty 2, each of which was owned by Nonparty 1 and 9-2, and the same land number of Nonparty 1 and 9-2, each of which was owned by Nonparty 1 and 5-2, and the same land number of Nonparty 2, each of which was owned by Nonparty 1 and 9-2, and the same land number of Nonparty 1 and 9-2, each of which was owned by Nonparty 1 and the same land number of Nonparty 2, each of which was owned by Nonparty 1 and 5-1 and the same land number of Nonparty 2, each of which was omitted.

C) Whether to deduct the number of consenters who are not based on the genuine will

⒧ 소외 22, 23, 24, 25의 조합설립 동의서에 첨부된 인감증명서는 이 사건 정비구역이 지정되기 이전에 발급된 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없으나, ① 도시정비법 제17조 , 제16조 는 조합설립인가 신청에 있어 토지등소유자의 동의는 인감도장을 사용한 서면동의의 방법에 의하며, 이 경우 인감증명서를 첨부하여야 한다고 규정하고 있고, 동법 시행규칙 제7조 제1항 제3호 는 조합설립인가 신청시 제출하여야 하는 서류로 ‘토지등소유자의 조합설립동의서 및 동의사항을 증명하는 서류’를 규정하고 있는바, 이와 같이 관계 법령에서 토지등소유자의 동의서를 제출할 때 동의사항을 증명하는 서류로 인감증명서를 첨부하도록 하는 것은 동의서에 날인된 인영이 인감증명서의 인영과 일치하는지를 확인하는 방법에 의하여 본인의 의사로 동의하였는지 여부를 명백히 하기 위한 것인 점, ② 현행 인감증명법과 그 시행령은 인감증명서의 유효기간에 관한 제한을 두고 있지 않은 점, ③ 위에서 본 바와 같이 주택재건축조합설립인가신청을 받은 피고로서는 조합설립인가의 요건인 토지등소유자의 동의 여부를 심사함에 있어서 인가 신청 당시 인감증명서가 첨부된 적법한 동의서가 제출되었는지, 그 동의서에 날인된 인영과 인감증명서의 인영이 동일한 것인지를 기준으로 심사하면 되는 점( 대법원 2010. 1. 28. 선고 2009두4845 판결 참조) 등을 종합하여 볼 때, 인감증명서의 발급일이 이 사건 정비구역이 지정되기 이전이라고 하더라도 본인의 동의의사를 확인할 수 있는 이상 조합설립에 관한 위 각 동의에 어떠한 하자가 있다고 할 수 없으므로, 원고들의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

According to the written evidence No. 10, the written consent submitted by Nonparty 26 may recognize the fact that the date of the written consent is not indicated. However, in light of the purport that the written consent date under the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, which was enforced at the time of the instant disposition, is not a requirement for the establishment of an association, and that Article 17 of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, etc., attached the certificate of personal seal impression with documents proving the consent matters when submitting the written consent, is to clarify whether the seal affixed to the written consent is consented to the person himself/herself by means of confirming whether the seal affixed to the written consent is consistent with the seal impression, so long as it can be confirmed by the identity of the seal imprint, it cannot be said that the written consent of the person himself/herself is not written in the written consent submitted by Nonparty 26. Thus,

Then, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

D) Whether to deduct Nonparty 27 from the number of consenters

⒧ 행정청의 처분의 적법성에 대한 판단기준 시점은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 처분시점이라 할 것이나, 도시정비법 시행규칙 제7조 에서는 조합설립인가를 받으려면 그 신청서에 토지등소유자의 명부와 동의서 등을 첨부하여 제출하도록 규정하고 있는 점, 설립인가신청 이후 설립인가시 사이의 기간에 토지등소유자는 언제든지 자신의 토지 또는 건물 등을 처분하거나 분할, 합병하는 것도 가능한데, 행정청이 처분일을 기준으로 다시 일일이 소유관계와 그 동의의사 유무를 확인하여 정족수를 판단하기는 현실적으로 어려울 뿐만 아니라 처분시점이 언제이냐에 따라 동의율이 달라질 수 있는 점, 동법 시행령 제28조 제4항 에서 조합설립 인가신청 전까지 동의를 철회하는 자를 동의자 수 산정에서 제외하도록 하여 승인신청 이후의 동의 철회는 동의자 수 산정에 반영하지 않도록 규정하고 있는 점 등을 종합하면, 조합설립 인가요건을 판단함에 있어 토지등소유자 및 그 동의의사는 처분시점이 아닌 조합설립 인가신청 당시를 기준으로 판단함이 상당하다 할 것이다.

In addition, Article 28 (1) 2 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act provides that one representative shall be calculated as the owner of a plot of land, etc., if the ownership or sectional ownership belongs to several co-ownerships. The above provision does not necessarily stipulate that a representative shall be selected in cases where the land or a building belongs to several co-ownerships, but it is a provision on the method of calculating the number of consenters that the number of owners of a plot of land, etc. shall be one person even in cases where the ownership or sectional ownership belongs to several co-ownerships. Therefore, if the ownership or sectional ownership belongs to several co-ownerships, co-owners selected a representative and did not agree to establish an association

In full view of the reasoning of the arguments in this case and the statement Nos. 13, 14, and 10-5, the non-party 27 owns approximately 139 square meters in the Dong-dong, Dongjak-gu, Seoul. The intervenor union completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the portion of 1/10 of the above land to the non-party 20 on July 14, 2010 before applying for the authorization for the establishment of the union (hereinafter August 2, 2010). The non-party 27 submitted written consent as the owner of the above land on July 7, 2010. The non-party 20 submitted written consent as the representative of the above land on September 15, 2010, the non-party 20 was the consent of the owner of the above land and calculated the consent rate for the disposition of this case. Thus, according to the above facts, the non-party 27 and the non-party 27 co-party 27 can not be deemed to have consented to the establishment of the above land.

E) Whether the state-owned and public land management authority should be deducted from the number of consenters

⒧ 도시정비법 시행령 제28조 제1항 제5호 는 국·공유지에 대해서는 그 재산관리청을 토지등소유자로 산정할 것을 규정하고 있으나 현실적으로 조합설립단계에서 국·공유지에 관하여 재산관리청의 의사가 표시되기는 쉽지 아니하여 국·공유지 재산관리청의 경우 동법 제17조 제1항 에서 정한 인감증명서를 첨부한 인감도장에 의한 서면동의 방식이 그대로 요구된다고 볼 수 없는 점, 실무상 국·공유지를 관리하는 행정관청에서 특별한 의사를 표시하지 않는 경우 재건축조합의 설립에 동의하는 것으로 처리하고 있다고 보이는 점, 동법 제66조 제3항 에 따라 정비구역 안의 국·공유재산은 정비사업 외의 목적으로 매각하거나 양도할 수 없고, 동법 제66조 제4항 에서는 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 등에 비추어 보면, 국·공유지의 관리청이 조합설립 인가신청시까지 조합설립에 반대의 의사를 표시하지 않는 한 조합설립에 동의한 것으로 보아야 할 것이다.

In light of the purport of the argument as a whole in the statement Nos. 6 and 7, and Nos. 3 and 80, the court below held that, as at the time of the disposition of this case, the above state/public land owned a total of 3,592 square meters in the rearrangement zone as shown in the attached list of state/public land, such as the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the Ministry of Strategy and Finance (part of the Korea Asset Management Corporation entrusted with the management/disposition by the Minister of Strategy and Finance), the Dongjak-gu, the Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the Korea Forest Service did not express an objection to the establishment of the intervenor association by the time of the application for the establishment of the association of this case. In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the above state/public land management authority did not agree to the establishment of the intervenor association of this case, and that there is no separate opinion on the appointment of the intervenor association of this case No. 281 through 381, the Seoul Association.

F) Whether the withdrawal of consent should be deducted from the number of consenters

⒧ 도시정비법 제17조 , 제16조 , 동법 시행령 제28조 제4항 은 토지등소유자가 조합설립 인가신청 전에 동의를 철회할 수 있으나, 동법 제16조 에 따른 조합설립의 인가에 대한 동의 후 동법 시행령 제26조 제2항 각 호 의 사항이 변경되지 않는 경우에는 조합설립의 인가신청 전이라 하더라도 철회할 수 없다고 규정하고 있고, 동법 시행령 제26조 제2항 은 동의서의 기재사항으로 건설되는 건축물의 설계의 개요( 제1호 ), 건축물의 철거 및 신축에 소요되는 비용의 개략적인 금액( 제2호 ), 제2호 에 따른 비용의 분담기준( 제3호 ), 사업 완료 후 소유권의 귀속에 관한 사항( 제4호 ), 조합정관( 제5호 ) 등을 규정하고 있는바, 위 관계규정을 종합하면, 조합설립의 인가에 대한 동의 후 도시정비법 시행령 제26조 제2항 이 규정한 사항이 변경되지 않는 한 토지등소유자는 조합설립의 인가신청 전이라도 동의를 철회할 수 없다 할 것이다.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in the statement Nos. 6 and 7, and Nos. 8-1, 2, 5, 6, and 8-2, 1, 2, and 7-1 through 5 of the evidence Nos. 8-1, 6, and 7, the non-party 6, who is the owner of the land and the building on the land of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, submitted a written consent to the establishment of the Intervenor’s association on May 6, 2010. The non-party 6 submitted a written notification stating the withdrawal of the above consent to the Defendant on July 14, 200, before the Intervenor submitted the above written consent, and the non-party 6 failed to modify the matters provided for in Article 26(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act, such as a summary of the building design to be constructed in the above written consent after the written consent was submitted. The non-party 6’s consent is unlawful under the proviso to Article 28(4) of the above Act.

D. Meanwhile, the delegation order can be determined when there exists an individual delegation that sets a specific scope in the law or upper level order. Here, the specific scope of delegation varies depending on the type and character of the subject matter to be regulated, and thus, uniform standards cannot be set. However, since the basic matters of the contents and scope to be stipulated in the delegation order are specified in detail, any person who can at least be able to predict the outline of the contents to be stipulated in the delegation order from the pertinent law or upper level order. In this case, the predictability of the delegation clause should not be determined with only one of the pertinent delegation clause, but the overall structure, purpose, and purpose of the delegation clause, the form and content of the pertinent delegation clause, and related laws and regulations must be determined systematically and systematically, and further, the specific and individual review should be conducted according to the nature of each regulation object (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du10701, Jan. 29, 2004).

However, the purpose of the Urban Improvement Act is to contribute to the improvement of urban environments and the elevation of quality of residential life by prescribing matters necessary for the planned rearrangement of areas where urban functions need to be restored or the residential environment is inferior, and for the efficient improvement of worn-out and inferior buildings (Article 1). It is difficult to specifically define detailed matters concerning the method and procedure for calculating the number of consenters due to the diverse types and forms of owners of lands, etc., compared with the legislation of the National Assembly, so it is necessary to delegate such matters to administrative legislation flexibly compared with the legislation of the National Assembly. Article 17(2) of the same Act provides that matters necessary for the method and procedure for calculating the number of consenters of owners of lands, etc. shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree, and Article 28(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the contents to be prescribed in the Enforcement Decree of the same Act can be predicted by considering the fact that Article 28(4) of the same Act complies

Therefore, inasmuch as the withdrawal of consent by Nonparty 6 is inappropriate and effective, the above argument is without merit. Further, considering the following: (a) evidence Nos. 1 through 3 of evidence Nos. 7 and 8-1, 2, and Eul Nos. 11, 85, Eul No. 87, and evidence Nos. 1, 2, 86, 87, and 1 through 3 of evidence Nos. 88-1 and 88, Nonparty 7 and 53 shared land and buildings on the ground of this case; (b) Nonparty 7 and 53 submitted the above written consent No. 97, Aug. 14, 2009; (c) Nonparty 8 submitted the written consent to the Association without the consent No. 97, as the representative of the above land and building; and (d) Nonparty 2 submitted the written consent to the Association, which was the owner of the land and the building on the ground of this case’s consent No. 97, respectively; (d) Nonparty 2, without the consent No. 97.

G) the re-assessment of the agreed ratio;

Based on the above determination, if the number of the owners and the number of consenters of the land or buildings in the area which is not the housing complex in the rearrangement zone at the time of the instant disposition, the number of the owners of the land or buildings shall be 235 as seen earlier, and the number of consenters shall be 178 [176 persons, 176 (17) + 3 (17, 8, 9) + 75.74% (178/235) at the time of the instant disposition on the basis of this, and on the basis of this, the consent rate at the time of the instant disposition exceeds 75.74% (178/235) which is necessary for the authorization to establish the participant association. Accordingly, the instant disposition is lawful after satisfying the consent requirements.

3. Conclusion

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

[Attachment]

Judge Thai-sai (Presiding Judge)