[1] In a case where the owners of land or a building and co-owners are different from each other in a housing redevelopment project, and where the same co-owners jointly own the land, land, or building in different lots, the method of calculating the "owner of land, etc."

[2] In a case where the approval for establishment was taken under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents with the consent of the majority of the owners of the land, etc. finalized by the planned rearrangement area before the designation and public notice of the rearrangement zone, whether the defect of the disposition is serious and obvious (negative

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 9 (a) and Article 17 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9444 of February 6, 2009), Article 28 (1) 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. 21679 of August 11, 2009) / [2] Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 13 (2) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2010Du9358 Decided September 30, 2010

Plaintiff

The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Zone Four Housing Redevelopment Promotion Committee

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu43978 decided June 3, 2011

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. In order for an administrative disposition to be deemed null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the disposition is insufficient, and the defect is objectively obvious because it violates the important part of the law. In determining whether the defect is serious and clear, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law should be examined from a teleological perspective as well as reasonable consideration as to the specificity of the specific case itself. In addition, in a case where an administrative agency takes an administrative disposition by applying a certain provision to a certain legal relationship or factual relationship, the legal doctrine clearly states that the provision of the law cannot be applied to the legal relationship or factual relationship, and even if there is no room for dispute over the interpretation of the provision of the law, it shall be deemed that the defect is significant and obvious. However, if there is room for dispute over the interpretation of the law as to the legal relation or factual relationship, it is merely erroneous that the administrative disposition is subject to an erroneous interpretation and thus, it cannot be said that the defect is evident, and it cannot be said that there is an objective error in the determination of the Supreme Court.

B. The lower court, citing the first instance judgment, determined that the Republic of Korea and Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the owner of State-owned and public land included in the rearrangement zone, consented to the establishment of the promotion committee of this case, and that 81 persons, including them, who agreed to the establishment of the promotion committee of this case among the 161 owners of land, etc., agreed to the establishment of the promotion committee of this case. The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’

First of all, since the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, who held the position of representing Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and held the land within the zone of the housing redevelopment project of this case, the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approved the establishment of the committee of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du4081, Oct. 11, 2012). In addition, in the case of the Republic of Korea, the establishment of the committee of this case cannot be viewed as consenting to the establishment of the committee of this case, as alleged in the grounds of appeal for suspicion. However, in light of the above legal principles, as long as there is room for dispute over the interpretation of the legal principles as to whether the State or local government did not express any intent to establish the committee of promotion on the rearrangement zone including the land, it cannot be said that the defect is evident even if the Republic of Korea is defective to have agreed to the establishment of the committee of this case, and therefore, the approval disposition of this case or the approval of the modification thereof cannot be deemed null and void.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the approval disposition of this case or the approval of this case's modification disposition is null and void as a matter of course is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the method of consent and consent of the establishment of an association by the State or local government

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In light of the contents and structure of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Article 2 subparag. 9 (a) and Article 17 of the former Act on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (amended by Act No. 9444, Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “former Act”), Article 28 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, one person for each real estate shall be calculated as the owner of the land, etc., if the owner of the land or the owner of the land or building and the co-owner are different. If the same co-owner jointly owns a different parcel of land, land, or building, regardless of the number of real estate, only one of the co-owners shall be calculated as the owner of the land, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du15852, Jan. 14, 2010, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable that only one of the non-party 1 and 2 who shares two parcels of land in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul (number omitted) as cited by the court below, and calculated the number of landowners and consenters on the ground that only one of the non-party 1 and 2, who owns two parcels of land in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, constitutes a landowner, etc., and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the calculation of the owner of the land

3. As to the third ground for appeal

Article 13(2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas (amended by Act No. 944, Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas”) provides that a cooperative shall be established in accordance with the method and procedure prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, which provides that the head of a Si/Gun shall obtain approval for establishment with the consent of at least five members including the chairperson, and the majority of owners, including the land for operating regulations under Article 4, after the designation and announcement of a rearrangement zone under Article 4; however, Article 13(2) of the former Act does not limit the timing of consent of owners, such as the land for the formation of a promotion committee, to an improvement zone after the designation and announcement of a rearrangement zone, even if an approval for establishment has been made with the consent of the majority of owners, such disposition cannot be deemed serious or apparent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du3985, Sept. 30, 2010).

In light of the above legal principles, it is just to determine that the first instance court's decision, as cited by the court below, cannot be deemed as null and void on the ground that there is a defect in the disposition of approval to establish a promotion committee before the designation and public notice of the improvement zone after the designation and public notice of the improvement zone under the former Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

[Attachment] List of Appointeds: Omitted

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)