Plaintiff 1 and 11 others (Law Firm Davia, Attorney Cho Dong-pon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

New Number 1 Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (Law Firm Dong, Attorneys Obong-seok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

April 14, 2011

1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the Defendant’s claim for confirmation of the primary invalidity of the approval of modification and the preliminary claim for cancellation against the Promotion Committee for the Housing Reconstruction Project in New Number 1 District on April 23, 2010 shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

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

1. On April 23, 2010, the Defendant’s approval of the change against the Promotion Committee for the Establishment of the New Number 1 Housing Reconstruction Project Association on April 23, 2010 and the approval of the establishment of the new Number 1 Housing Reconstruction Project Association on June 4, 2010 is invalid.

2. Preliminaryly, the Defendant’s disposition of approval for modification against the promotion committee for the establishment of the new number 1 housing reconstruction project association on April 23, 2010, and the disposition of approval for establishment of the new number 1 housing reconstruction project association on June 4, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 서울특별시장은 2006. 3. 23. 서울특별시 고시 제2006-95호로 서울 마포구 신수동 (지번 1 생략) 일대 4.9㏊(㎡로 환산하면, 49,000㎡이다)를 도시 및 주거환경정비법(이하 ‘도시정비법’이라고 한다)이 정한 정비예정구역으로 지정하는 내용 등의 도시·주거환경정비기본계획(이하 ‘이 사건 정비기본계획’이라고 한다)을 수립하여 이를 고시하였다.

B. On May 3, 2006, Nonparty 26, etc. filed an application for approval to establish the said promotion committee on the ground that there was 187 consent from 342 owners of land, etc. among the total number of 343 owners of land, etc. (54.51% of the consent rate) in order to promote the housing reconstruction improvement project where the project is scheduled to implement the new zone of 49,000 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (number 1 omitted), and the Defendant filed an application for approval to establish the “Establishment Promotion Committee for the Newdong Housing Reconstruction Association” with the Defendant (number 1 omitted). Accordingly, on June 30, 2006, the Defendant approved the establishment of the said promotion committee on the ground that there was 187 consent from 342 owners of land, etc. in the said zone (hereinafter referred to as the “instant approval to establish the promotion committee, and the said promotion committee is referred to as the “instant promotion committee”).

C. On October 29, 2009, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”) announced the topographic map by changing the size, etc. of the rearrangement zone in the instant master plan as follows (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”).

[Modification of Basic Plan for Maintenance of this case]

본문내 포함된 표 구분 구역번호 동명 지번 면적 용적율 층수 추진단계 기존 11 신수동 (지번 1 생략) 5.9㏊ 190%이하 평균층수 10 1 변경 ″ ″ ″ 5.8㏊ ″ - ″

【Location and Size of the Rearrangement Zone】

The name and location of the zone for the designation of a table in the main sentence and new number of new housing reconstruction improvement zones (number 1 omitted) in Mapo-gu 47,501.4

D. On March 26, 2010, the instant promotion committee filed an application with the Defendant for approval of the change of the promotion committee of this case with the content that the said 47,501.4 square meters should be designated as project implementation area in addition to the consent of 187 owners of land, etc. of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (No. 11 omitted), and the total area of 49,000 square meters was reduced to 47,501.4 square meters from the total area of 49,501.4 square meters within the rearrangement zone (No. 11 omitted), on April 23, 2010.

E. On May 24, 2010, the instant promotion committee filed an application with the Defendant for authorization to establish an association, attaching a written consent of the owners of land, etc., and the Defendant approved the establishment of the Defendant’s Intervenor Cooperative (hereinafter “ Intervenor Cooperative”) on the ground that 314 of the owners of land, etc., among 414 owners of land, etc., gave consent (75.8% of the consent rate), on June 4, 2010 (hereinafter “instant approval to establish the association”).

F. Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs are owners of land or its ground buildings located within the instant rearrangement zone.

[Ground for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 7, 8, 10 evidence, Eul 1, 2 (including each number), 5 and 6 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the intervenor's defenses prior to the merits regarding the claim related to the approval of the modification of the instant case

A. Intervenor’s assertion

As mentioned in the latter, the Plaintiffs asserted that there was a defect in the disposition of this case’s modification, and sought confirmation and revocation of the primary invalidity of and preliminary revocation of the disposition of this case’s modification, in light of the following: (a) although the promotion committee of this case did not apply for approval of establishment promotion committee under Article 13(2) of the former Urban Improvement Act and Article 3 of the Addenda of the same Act, although the rearrangement zone was designated and publicly announced differently from the originally planned rearrangement zone; and (b) although the rearrangement zone was designated and publicly announced differently from the originally planned rearrangement zone, the promotion committee of this case submitted the existing 187 written consent and additional 20 written consent from the entire owners of this case’s land, etc., without obtaining any new written consent, the modification plan of this case’s modification was made by the Defendant; and (b) the Intervenor association, upon the application of the promotion committee of this case, did not have any interest in the lawsuit seeking confirmation or revocation of the modification of the disposition of this case’s modification.

B. Determination

Article 5 of the Promotion Committee for Housing Reconstruction Project established with the consent of a majority of owners of land, etc. and the approval of the head of Si/Gun (hereafter referred to as "Promotion Committee" in this paragraph) provides that the rights and obligations of the Promotion Committee for housing reconstruction project (hereafter referred to as "association" in this paragraph) shall be the non-corporate group consisting of promoters, and there is an essential difference with other organizations, such as that it cannot be dissolved by a resolution of its members. Article 5 of the Operation Rules of the Promotion Committee for the Establishment of Rearrangement Project (No. 2006-30 of the amended Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 206 of August 25, 2006) provides that "The Promotion Committee may carry out its business affairs until the date of establishment authorization, and all of its business affairs and assets shall be transferred to the Association, and the Promotion Committee shall be dissolved, as long as there is no legal interest in the approval for establishment of the Promotion Committee's establishment before the Promotion Committee's approval for establishment is revoked or invalidated.

3. Determination on the claim related to the establishment authorization disposition of this case

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Defect in the illegality of the instant permit for establishment and the instant permit for modification

Since the approval of the establishment of this case and the approval of the modification of this case are null and void for the following reasons, the approval of the establishment of this case based on the application of the committee for promotion of this case is based on the application of a non-authorized person, and its primary defect is null and void,

(A) Defect in the instant permit for establishment itself

In full view of the provisions of subparagraph 9 (a) and Article 4 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, to establish an association promotion committee for housing reconstruction projects, the scope of the owners of land, etc. need to be determined on the premise thereof, and in order to determine the scope of the owners of land, etc., the designation and announcement of the rearrangement zone by the Mayor/Do Governor must be prior to the designation and announcement of the owner of the land, etc..

(B) Defects in the instant modified approval itself

(1) Violation of Article 13 (2) of the former Urban Improvement Act.

Despite the fact that a rearrangement zone was designated after the disposition of approval for establishment of this case, the committee of promotion of this case did not file an application for approval of establishment promotion committee based on the existing written consent within three months from the enforcement date of the above Act pursuant to Article 13(2) of the former Urban Improvement Act and Article 3 of the Addenda of the same Act ( February 6, 2009). Therefore, the approval of the modification of this case, which was made based on the existing written consent after the expiration of the above period, constitutes a defect in violation of each of the above provisions.

(2) Violation of Article 13 (3) of the Urban Improvement Act.

Inasmuch as the instant rearrangement zone was designated and publicly announced differently from the originally planned rearrangement zone, the instant promotion committee had to obtain a new consent from the owners of the land, etc. in the instant rearrangement zone, and filed an application for approval for modification of the promotion committee with the Defendant. Nevertheless, the instant promotion committee submitted only the existing 187 written consent and the additional 20 written consent received at the time of the instant approval for modification, and received the instant approval for modification from the Defendant. As such, the instant approval for modification was made in violation of Article 13(3) of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 4 of the Addenda of the same Act (amended by February 6, 2009). Therefore, the instant approval for modification is significant and obvious.

(3) Claims related to the validity of written consent to change of an improvement zone.

Since the written consent to change of the rearrangement zone submitted by the promotion committee to the defendant around 2007 cannot be seen as an application for approval for change of the promotion committee or a written consent to establish a new promotion committee under the relevant statutes, the instant approval for change is unlawful.

(2) Illegal due to defects in the association establishment authorization of this case

The plaintiffs asserted that the disposition to establish the association of this case is invalid or should be revoked as the main defects are significant and apparent, with the inherent defects below the disposition to establish the association of this case.

(A) Defects related to multiple requirements

(1) Total number: 420 persons.

The number of Nonparty 1, 7, 3, 4, 11, 12, and 5, etc. (the Plaintiff’s attachment of preparatory documents as of March 18, 201, Nos. 16, 31, 165, 189, 475, and 507 among the list of the entire owners of each land, etc. at the time of the disposition on March 18, 201) was arbitrarily omitted. Therefore, if such inclusion is made, the total number of the owners of land, etc. at the time of the disposition of authorization to establish the instant association is not 414 but 420 persons (397 persons and building owners + 8 landowners and 11 landowners + 4 state-owned and public land management authorities).

(2) The number of consenters: The number of consenters shall be the highest 310 persons.

In light of the following, four institutions, including the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Mapo-gu, which are state-owned and public land management authorities (see, e.g., the current status table of the owners of land, etc. at the time of association authorization on March 18, 2011 of the Plaintiff’s preparatory documents attached thereto; hereinafter referred to as the “ current status table”) need not consult with the Defendant about establishment of an association with the Defendant, and there is no express express consent that it cannot be a member of the Housing Reconstruction Project Association, etc.

(b) The period between the date of preparing a written consent to establish the association and the date of issuing a certificate of personal seal impression attached thereto shall be at least six years (No. 379 out of the current status list) or at least three years (no. 451 out of the current status list) or two years (no. 15, No. 452 out of the current status list No. 110, No. 15, No. 452, No. 16) or

A written consent (No. 236, No. 17, and No. 18 of the current status list) of co-owners with no written consent to the selection of representatives shall be excluded.

A written consent (No. 19 out of the present list) where a “defensive error” exists shall be excluded.

A written consent with a certificate of seal impression supplemented (169 out of the current status list) after submitting a written consent shall be excluded.

㉳ 이 사건 정비구역 지정·고시 후 조합설립인가신청 전까지 조합설립동의를 철회한 소외 21, 22, 23, 24, 15 등 5명의 동의서는 제외되어야 한다. 또한, 도시정비법 제13조 제3항 이 조합설립인가신청 전의 동의철회권을 보장하고 있고 위 동의철회권의 제한과 관련하여 아무런 위임규정을 두고 있지 아니함에도 도시 및 주거환경정비법 시행령(이하 ‘도시정비법 시행령’이라고 한다) 제28조 제4항 에서 자의적으로 위 동의철회권을 제한하는 것은 모법에 위배되는 것으로서 무효이다.

㉴ 참가인이 제출한 동의서 중 일부는 조합설립인가에 대한 동의서가 아니라 추진위원회 설립동의서 또는 추진위원회변경승인동의서에 불과하므로 이들은 제외되어야 한다.

㉵ 참가인이 제출한 동의서 중에는 도시정비법 시행령 제26조 제2항 각호 에서 정한 건축물 설계의 개요, 건축물의 철거 및 신축에 소요되는 비용 및 분담기준, 사업완료 후 소유권 귀속에 관한 사항 등 법정사항의 기재가 일부 누락되었는데, 이러한 동의서는 제외되어야 한다.

③ Sub-committee

② Even if the above defect is recognized, the consent rate is only 73.8% (i.e., 310 persons/420 persons). Ultimately, the instant disposition to establish an association was made without consent of at least 3/4 of the owners of land, etc.

(b) a defect relating to the area requirement;

The ratio of the area of state-owned and public land (7,640 square meters) out of the total area of the instant improvement zone (47,501.4 square meters) is about 16%. For the same reason as seen above, state-owned and public land management authority should be excluded from the person consenting to the establishment of an association. Therefore, in calculating the ratio of the area of land, the area of state-owned and public land should be excluded. However, among the private land area (39,861 square meters) within the instant improvement zone, the area agreed by the owners of land, etc. is merely 24,905 square meters (based on the total number of owners of land, etc. 420 square meters) and thus, the ratio of the area of land (24,905/47,501.4 square meters) is substantially short of the statutory consent rate (2/3). Even if State-owned and public land management authority deems it reasonable to include the part of the area of land owned by the Defendant in the area owned by the

(C) Doing of the application period for authorization to establish an association and abuse of discretionary power

In light of the purport of Article 8(4)2-2 of the Urban Improvement Act, the Defendant was found to have abused discretion, and thus, it was unlawful in light of the purport of Article 8(4)2-2 of the Act.

B. Relevant provisions

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) As to the assertion of defects in the instant permit for establishment

In light of the following circumstances, when the establishment and public announcement of the basic plan including the outlined scope of zones scheduled to be designated as the rearrangement zone was made first, the concept of the owner of land, etc. can be presented even before the designation and public announcement of the rearrangement zone and the scope thereof can be effectively determined. Therefore, approval for establishment of the promotion committee can be granted even before the designation and public announcement of the rearrangement zone. Therefore, the approval for establishment of this case cannot be deemed as having any defect as alleged by the Plaintiffs (it cannot be deemed as an obvious defect even if the defect is deemed to exist). Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ above assertion premiseds on the invalidation of the approval for establishment

(A) Article 13 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008) provides that where a person who is not the head of a Si/Gun or the Housing Corporation intends to implement a rearrangement project, an association consisting of the owners of a plot of land, etc. shall be established (Paragraph 1), and where an association is intended to be established pursuant to Paragraph 1, an association shall be organized with the consent of at least 5 members including the chairperson with the consent of at least 1/2 of the owners of a plot of land, etc. and the approval of an association promotion committee shall be obtained from the head of a Si/Gun in accordance with

(B) Article 3 and Article 4 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9444 of Feb. 6, 2009) provide that if a master plan for the maintenance of urban and residential environment is formulated, including the outline scope of zones scheduled to be designated as a rearrangement zone, the head of a Si/Gun shall establish a rearrangement zone and a rearrangement plan including the rearrangement zone within the scope consistent with the master plan. In fact, in this case, the rearrangement zone and the rearrangement zone in this case are reduced to a size of 49,00 square meters from a size of 49,500 square meters to a size of 47,501.4 square meters, and there is

(C) At the time of the instant disposition for approval for establishment, “where a master plan is not established or is not subject to establishment” under the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, the “where a master plan is established” was prescribed to allow approval for the promotion committee after reflecting the master plan.

(D) Article 6(1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments, which was enforced at the time of the instant approval for establishment, states that “The Establishment Promotion Committee approved under Article 13 of the Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Act may propose the head of the competent Gu to formulate a plan for the designation of a rearrangement zone.” In addition, Article 6(2) of the said Ordinance on the Maintenance, which states that “The owners of land, etc. may propose the formulation of a plan for the designation of a rearrangement zone to the head of the competent Gu. In this case, consent shall be obtained from at least 2/3 of the owners of land, etc. in the relevant region.” However, the said Ordinance is premised

(2) As to the assertion of defects in the instant modified approval itself

(A) Determination on the assertion of violation of Article 13(2) of the former Act

Article 13(1) and (2) of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provide that "where a person other than the head of a Si/Gun or the Housing Corporation, etc. intends to implement a rearrangement project, an association comprised of owners of a plot of land, etc. shall be established, and where it is intended to establish the said association, a promotion committee for establishing an association shall be organized with the consent of a majority of the owners of a plot of land, etc. after the public announcement of designation of an improvement zone and the approval therefor shall be obtained from the head of a Si/Gun." Article 3 of the Addenda of the same Act (amended Provisions of Article 13(2) provides that "The amended provisions of Article 13(2) shall apply from the first time after this Act enters into force." However, the amended provisions of Article 13(2) of the Act do not apply to the approval of the establishment of this case or

(B) Determination on the assertion of violation of Article 13(3) of the Urban Improvement Act

In light of the following circumstances, even if the potential project implementation zone was somewhat reduced as the rearrangement zone in this case, the approval for establishment of the promotion committee in this case still remains valid, and it cannot be said that the approval for alteration of this case was unlawful by the defendant with the consent of 20 additional persons without the new consent from the owners of land, etc. in the existing zone where the promotion committee in this case had already consented. Therefore, the plaintiffs

① Article 13(3) of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 4 of the Addenda of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2009, Feb. 6, 2009) are deemed to have consented to the establishment of a promotion committee in cases of owners of land, etc. who have consented to the organization of the promotion committee, and merely stipulate the applicable period. Therefore, it cannot be deemed to have violated each of the above provisions on the ground that the promotion committee of this case did not obtain a new consent from the owners of land, etc.

② In full view of the provisions of Article 14(4) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 23(1)1(b) 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 Aug. 11, 2009), the Promotion Committee of this case, which establishes an existing area as an expected area for implementation of a project, shall be deemed to have the authority to perform

③ Consent forms of the owners of land, etc. in the existing zone are more focused on the intent of participating in the housing reconstruction project than focusing on the consent to the scope of the rearrangement zone, and the intent of participating in the housing reconstruction project as above and the intent of new promoters of the promotion committee is still valid even if the project is somewhat modified.

④ In light of the fact that the instant promotion committee, which received approval for establishment based on the consent of the owners of land, etc. in the existing zone, is changing the project implementation scheduled zone as the main body, even if no consent was obtained from the owners of land, etc. of land in the existing zone on the formation of the promotion committee, which newly sets the project implementation scheduled zone as the rearrangement zone in this case, there is no possibility that the interests of the owners of land

⑤ Although there is no statutory provision recognizing approval for change of the promotion committee, in light of Article 16(1) of the Urban Improvement Act, which is a provision allowing authorization for change of the approval for establishment, the defendant's right to approve the promotion committee may also be deemed to include the right to approve change.

(6) The area of the rearrangement zone in the instant case is merely about 4% reduction compared to the area of the zone scheduled to be rearranged as stipulated in the instant rearrangement plan, and its identity can be recognized.

7) The instant promotion committee obtained the consent of at least 2/3 of the owners of the land, etc. who agreed to the composition of the instant promotion committee in relation to the amendment of the scope of implementation of the rearrangement project when formulating a proposal to designate the rearrangement zone, and obtained the consent of at least four of the six owners of the land, etc. of Mapo-gu Seoul ( Address 11 omitted) additionally incorporated.

(8) Where the expected zone for project implementation has been reduced in the relevant statutes, the interpretation of the relevant statutes is unclear because there is no express provision on whether the owners of land, etc. in the existing zone should obtain consent again from the owners of land, etc. in order

(C) Determination on the validity of the written consent to the alteration of the improvement zone

At the time of the instant approval for establishment, the Defendant consented to the establishment of the instant promotion committee by 187 owners of land, etc. in the existing zone, and submitted 20 written consent thereto, and issued the instant approval for modification on the ground that 207 owners of land, etc. in the instant improvement zone consent was given to 401 owners of land, etc. in the instant improvement zone, and it did not issued the instant approval for modification on the basis of the written consent for modification submitted by the instant promotion committee around May 2007. Accordingly, the prior Plaintiffs’ assertion on the different premise

(3) As to the assertion of defects in the association establishment authorization of this case

(A) Regarding multiple requirements

As delineated below, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have erred in calculating the number of persons consenting to the establishment of an association at the time of the instant disposition approving the establishment of an association: Provided, That even though the consent rate was partially changed as a result of erroneous calculation of the total number of owners of land, etc., the final consent rate is 75.77% [number of consenters 316 + number of consenters 316 + Nonparty 1, 7) / Total number of owners of land, etc. (414 + Nonparty 1, 7, 11, and 25 indicated in the written disposition approving the establishment of the association of this case + Nonparty 414 indicated in the written disposition approving the establishment of the association of this case + Nonparty 1, 7, 11

(1) Total number of owners of land, etc.: 417 persons.

In full view of all the following circumstances as seen earlier and the evidence No. 23-19,20,21, 38, 208, 247, 648, 68, 686, and Eul evidence No. 2-1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 3-1 through 5, and the whole purport of oral argument, the defendant should have calculated the total number of the owners of lands, etc. at the time of the instant disposition for approving the establishment of the association, but it is recognized that the defendant erred by 414, although the defendant should have calculated the total number of the owners of lands, etc. at the time of the instant disposition for approving the establishment of the association (414 + Nonparty 1, 7, 11 and 25 stated in the instant disposition for approving the establishment of the association). The issue is as follows.

(B) Non-party 1, 7: including

Nonparty 1, in addition to the sole ownership of land in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 1 omitted), shares the same ( Address 2 omitted) land and the same ( Address 2 omitted) building and one lot of land outside the same ( Address 2 omitted) with Nonparty 2, etc., it shall be included in the owners of lands, etc. separate from the above co-owners, and Nonparty 7 shall be included in the owners of lands, etc., on June 1, 2010, after receiving a donation from Nonparty 6 of Mapo-gu Seoul

(C) Non-party 3, 4, 5: Exclusion

In the case of Nonparty 3, 4, and 5, the resident registration number on the registry of the real estate owned by each person is not indicated, and around July 29, 2010, the intervenor association sent a peremptory notice to Nonparty 3, 4, and 5 on the establishment consent and request for sale to the address indicated on each registry, which is close to the date of the disposition to approve the establishment of the association of this case, but all of the addresses were returned due to unknown address, etc., the non-party 3, 4, and 5 should be excluded from the owner of land, etc., in light of the fact that the non-party 3, 4, and 5 did not indicate the resident registration number at the time of being registered as the owner, and the address indicated is different from the present address.

Categoryd Non-party 11 and 25 : includes

A resident registration number of Nonparty 11 and 25 is not indicated on the registry of real estate owned by Nonparty 11 and 25, and an intervenor association sent a peremptory notice to Nonparty 25 on July 29, 2010, near the date of the disposition to approve the establishment of the association of this case, to the address indicated on the registry, but the fact that the address is unknown is recognized. However, in the case of Nonparty 11, who is another co-owner, the intervenor association sent the peremptory notice to another place ( Address 7 omitted) other than that of Mapo-gu (Seoul Mapo-gu omitted), not on the registry ( Address 8 omitted), and thus, it appears that the intervenor was returned to an unidentified address (refer to the document No. 238, 248, 2-3 of the evidence No. 2). Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the whereabouts of Nonparty 25 or Nonparty 11 at the time of the disposition to authorize the establishment of the association of this case were not confirmed. Therefore, Nonparty 11 and 25, a co-owner cannot be excluded.

(2) The number of consenters: 316 persons.

The plaintiffs' assertion on this part cannot be accepted for the following reasons (the number of consenters is right to see that it is 316 persons calculated by adding 1 and 7-2 persons to 314 persons indicated in the written disposition of approving the establishment of the association of this case).

(1) State and public land

Among 314 persons indicated in the instant disposition approving the establishment of a government-owned or public land management authority. The above management authority shall not sell or transfer State-owned or public property in an improvement zone for purposes other than a rearrangement project pursuant to Article 66(3) of the Urban Improvement Act, and Article 66(4) of the same Act provides that state-owned or public property in an improvement zone may be sold or leased preferentially to the project implementer or occupant or user by free contract notwithstanding the state-owned or public property management plan under Article 9 of the State Property Act or Article 77 of the Local Finance Act and the contract methods under Article 43 of the State Property Act and Article 61 of the Local Finance Act. In reality, it is not easy to indicate the owner's intent as to state-owned or public land in the establishment stage. The above management authority shall be treated as consenting to the establishment of a reconstruction association if it does not express any special opinion at the administrative authority managing state-owned or public land in accordance with the guidelines for the mediation of disputes (see subparagraph 8 of this Article).

(B) Certificate of personal seal impression

The reason why the certificate of the personal seal impression is required to be attached to the written consent for the establishment of an association is to guarantee the authenticity of the establishment of the association, so long as the seal impression attached to the certificate of the personal seal impression and the seal impression attached to the written consent for the establishment of the association are identical, the period between the date of preparation of the written consent for the establishment of the association and the date of issuance of the certificate of the personal seal impression attached thereto is different for more than two years (the written consent for the establishment of the association in preparation of the 20 preparation) or the certificate of the personal seal impression was supplemented after the submission of the written consent

Dap Representative Selection Agreement

According to Gap evidence 23-317, Gap evidence 29-29-340 and 342, the non-party 18 and 17 shared the land at Mapo-gu Seoul ( Address 9 omitted). It is recognized that they submitted a written consent for the establishment of each association without submitting a separate written consent for the selection of a representative. The above facts of recognition reveal that the submission of a written consent for the selection of a representative is only one method of expressing the co-owners' consent. Thus, even if the non-party 18 and 17 submitted a written consent for the appointment of a representative, it cannot be deemed that there was any defect in relation to the method of the consent for the establishment of a association, unless the non-party 18 and 17 separately submitted a written consent for the

Catch Address Error

Compared with the registry (No. 23-1) or the certificate of personal seal impression (No. 29-2), it cannot be recognized that there are errors such as erroneous entries of the address indicated in the written consent for the establishment of the association (No. 29-1) in the name of Nonparty 19, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge such errors.

Postal Affairs Revocation of Consent

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence 29-23, 48, Gap evidence 33-1, Eul evidence 37-1, and Eul evidence 27-1 and 2, the non-party 24, after the designation of the rearrangement zone in this case, prepared a written consent for the establishment of each association and submitted it around such time on November 20, 209. Non-party 24 and the non-party 15 expressed their intent to withdraw their consent to the establishment of the association to the defendant around June 3, 2010, and the non-party 24 and the non-party 15 did not submit the written consent to the establishment of the association to the defendant on February 26, 2010. Thus, the non-party 24 and the non-party 15 did not withdraw their consent from the beginning until they withdraw their consent. Thus, the non-party 24 and the non-party 25-28 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act did not withdraw their consent to the establishment.

In addition, the content of Article 28(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions constitutes “necessary matters concerning the method and procedure for calculating the number of consenters of land owners, etc.” under Article 17(2) of the Act, and thus, it can be deemed that the specific delegation of the parent law is followed. Article 28(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act is prepared in order to ensure the smooth implementation of the maintenance and improvement procedure, and it is difficult to deem that it exceeded the limit delegated within the predicted scope in light of the legislative intent of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, it cannot be deemed that it violates this parent law.

㉳ 추진위원회 설립동의서 또는 변경승인동의서 포함

The Defendant issued the instant disposition to establish the association based on the written consent for the establishment of the committee at the time of applying for the authorization to establish the committee, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the written consent for the establishment of the committee or the written consent for the modification of the committee was mixed with the written consent for the establishment of the committee (the Plaintiff did not specify whose name the written consent for the establishment of the committee or the written consent for the modification of the committee was included in all the written consent kept by the Defendant during the preparatory proceedings for pleadings

㉴ 법정기재사항 누락

According to the purport of Eul's evidence 3 and the whole purport of oral argument, the written consent of the establishment of the association submitted to the defendant at the time of applying for the authorization of the establishment of the promotion committee of this case is included in all the statutory matters stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 26 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, as the standard written consent under Article 26 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act

(b) relating to area requirements:

The fact that the total area of the instant rearrangement zone is 47,501.4 square meters at the time of the disposition to establish the association is 7,640 square meters, and that the area of the State-owned or public land is 39,861 square meters among them is 30,861 square meters does not conflict among the parties. Furthermore, as seen earlier, if the State-owned or public-owned land area is included in the consenters, the total area of the Dong in calculation is 32,545 square meters (24,905 square meters + 7,640 square meters) and the total area is 68.51% (32,545 square meters and 47,50 square meters and 47,500 square meters) and the aggregate of the area of the State-owned or public-owned land is 420 square meters and 39,8617 square meters, and there is no reason to deem that the total number of land owners in the instant rearrangement zone is 4200 square meters and 45424.7 square meters among the land owners.

(C) Regarding the application period for association establishment authorization

Article 8(4) of the Urban Improvement Act provides, “The head of a Si/Gun may directly implement a rearrangement project or designate a designated developer or a housing construction project as a project implementer and have him/her implement a rearrangement project.” In light of the form of the provision, it does not necessarily require the designation of a project implementer, and it may inevitably require a long-term period to authorize the promotion committee to establish the project. In light of the nature of the housing reconstruction project, etc., even if the promotion committee applied for the authorization of the establishment of the instant case after four years from the time when the approval was issued, even if the promotion committee applied for the authorization of the establishment of the instant case after the lapse of four years from the time when the approval was issued, it does not constitute an abuse of discretionary authority. The Plaintiffs’ assertion

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiffs' claims related to the approval of the modification of this case among the lawsuits in this case is unlawful and all of the remaining claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

【Attached Provisions】

Judges Lee Jong-hun (Presiding Judge)