The case affirming the judgment below which held that there is no benefit of lawsuit seeking cancellation of the management and disposal plan separately from the project execution plan, in case where Gap, owners of land, etc. within the housing redevelopment improvement project zone Gap was automatically admitted as a member of the urban environment rearrangement project association Eul under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents; and Gap did not apply for parcelling-out within

Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 19, 28, 30, and 48 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)

Plaintiff 1 and five others (Attorney Seo-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Urban Environment Improvement Association in Zone 1-1 (Attorney Kim Young-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 2008Du18342 Decided December 8, 2011

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu44848 decided July 13, 2012

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. As to the plaintiff 2's appeal

Plaintiff 2 did not submit a statement of grounds for appeal within the statutory period, and the petition of appeal does not contain any indication in the grounds for appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”).

A. As to the allegation in the grounds of appeal on invalidity of the project implementation plan

In order for a defective administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, it must be objectively obvious that the defect is in violation of the important part of the relevant law and objectively apparent. When determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the relevant law shall be examined from a teleological perspective, and at the same time, reasonable consideration shall be made on the characteristics of the specific case itself. In a case where an administrative agency has taken an administrative disposition by applying a certain provision to a certain legal relationship or factual relationship, the legal doctrine as to which the provision of the relevant law is not applicable, clearly stated that there is no room for dispute over the interpretation, and thus, if an administrative agency has taken the disposition by applying the above provision, it shall be deemed that the defect is significant and obvious. However, if there is room for dispute over the interpretation because the legal principles as to the legal relation or factual relations are not clearly revealed, even if the administrative disposition by erroneous interpretation is merely erroneous as to the fact of the relevant disposition requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Du2825, Sep. 24, 2009).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is justified in holding that the project implementation plan of this case and the approval disposition of this case are not deemed to have any defects asserted by the plaintiffs, or even if it is recognized that such defects are serious and clear, so the project implementation plan of this case cannot be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles due to violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal

B. As to the allegation in the grounds of appeal on the interest of legal action in revocation of the management and disposition plan

The lower court determined that the Plaintiffs did not have a legal interest to seek revocation of the instant management and disposition plan, separate from the instant project implementation plan, on the ground that the Plaintiffs were the owners of land, etc. in the instant project zone, who were automatically joined as the Defendant’s members 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) and did not apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out, and that the Plaintiffs’ land, etc. was

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in the lawsuit, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

C. As to the allegation in the grounds of appeal on the grounds for illegality in revocation of the management and disposal plan

The allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is that a business action plan or a sale notification procedure may be asserted as unlawful grounds or defects in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a management and disposition plan, and this constitutes an assertion on the merits. However, the lower court maintained the first instance judgment deeming that the plaintiffs' lawsuit in this case is unlawful, and did not proceed to the determination on the merits, and thus, the allegation in the grounds of appeal on

D. As to the plaintiff 5's other grounds of appeal (e.g., omission of judgment and incomplete hearing)

(1) The reasoning of a written judgment is sufficient to indicate the judgment on the party’s assertion and other means of offence and defense to the extent that it can be recognized that the text is justifiable, and there is no need to determine all of the parties’ allegations or means of offence and defense (Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, even if a court’s judgment does not indicate any specific and direct determination on a party’s assertion, it cannot be deemed an omission of judgment if it can be known that the assertion was accepted or rejected in light of the overall purport of the reasoning of the judgment even though the specific and direct determination on a party’s assertion was not indicated, and even if it is obvious that the assertion would be rejected even if the judgment was not actually made, there is no error of omission of judgment as it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da88631, Apr. 29, 2010; 201Da

The court below did not state an explicit determination on the assertion that the Defendant’s selection of the contractor is invalid in violation of the articles of association or that the approval of the association is invalid in terms of the project implementation area different from the contents of the agenda presented at the association establishment agreement or the inaugural general meeting, and thus, the instant project implementation plan or its approval disposition is invalid. However, the court below’s rejection of the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the instant project implementation plan (revision) and its approval disposition are material and apparent defects are invalid. However, it appears that the purport of the court below is to exclude the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s selection of the contractor or the approval of the association is invalid. Even if the court below omitted its determination, it is obvious that the Defendant’s selection of the contractor or the approval of the association is invalid in light of the records, and therefore,

(2) The court may choose not to examine the evidence requested by the parties, unless it is the only evidence of the party's allegations (Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Act). The documents for which the plaintiff 5 requested the delivery of documents at the court below after remanding the documents are not the only evidence of the plaintiff 5's alleged facts, but it is not necessary to investigate them on the records. Thus, the court below's error of refusing to accept the request or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations is not erroneous.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)