[1] Legal nature of a lawsuit against a housing reconstruction and improvement project association under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (=party lawsuit under the Administrative Litigation Act)

[2] Whether it is possible to seek confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the general meeting on the management and disposition plan formulated by the housing reconstruction and improvement project association under Article 48 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents after the approval and public notice by the competent administrative agency (negative)

[3] In a case where a lawsuit is filed against a housing reconstruction and improvement project association under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents to seek confirmation of invalidity of a resolution of the general meeting on the management and disposal plan, the case holding that such lawsuit falls under the party litigation under the Administrative Litigation Act

[4] The case holding that it is reasonable to transfer the above lawsuit to the administrative court, which is the competent court, on the ground that the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the general meeting on the management and disposal plan of the housing reconstruction project association, is not a case where it is evident that the lawsuit is dismissed after the transfer of the lawsuit, on the sole ground that there was an authorization and public notice of the competent

[1] A lawsuit disputing the validity, etc. of the resolution of the general meeting of an association on a management and disposition plan against a housing reconstruction and improvement project association, which is an administrative subject under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, is related to legal relations under public law which directly affects the illegality of administrative disposition according to the result of the lawsuit, and thus constitutes a party litigation under the Administrative Litigation

[2] If a housing reconstruction and improvement project association established pursuant to Article 48 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents obtains approval from the competent administrative agency, the management and disposal plan becomes effective as an administrative disposition. Therefore, it is not allowed to seek revocation or invalidity confirmation of the management and disposal plan by an appeal litigation disputing the validity of the administrative disposition on the grounds of defects in the resolution of the general meeting, and to file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the validity of the plan separately from the procedural requirements leading to the administrative disposition, barring special circumstances.

[3] In a case where a lawsuit is filed against a housing reconstruction and improvement project association under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents to seek confirmation of invalidity of a resolution of the general meeting on the management and disposal plan, the case holding that the lawsuit constitutes a party suit under the Administrative Litigation

[4] Where a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the general meeting on the management and disposal plan of the housing reconstruction and improvement project association is filed in violation of the jurisdiction, and the competent administrative agency's approval and public notice was made after filing a civil lawsuit, it is impossible to seek confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the general meeting, but it is not possible to seek confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the management and disposal plan, but considering that the lawsuit can be changed to the revocation lawsuit, etc. against the management and disposal plan after the transfer with the permission of the administrative court after the transfer, it is difficult to view that the

[1] Articles 18, 24(3)10 and 48 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 24(3)10 and 48 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 3 subparag. 2 and Article 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Articles 24(3)10 and 48 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act / [4] Articles 24(3)10 and 48 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 3 subparag. 2 and 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 34(1)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2004Da13694 Decided July 22, 2004 (Revised) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 95Da28960 Decided May 30, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1997) Supreme Court Decision 2007Da25261 Decided July 24, 2008

Plaintiff 1 (Appointed Party)

Plaintiff 2

Defendant Reconstruction and Maintenance Project Association (Law Firm B branch, Attorneys Park Jae-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na42162 Delivered on December 15, 2006

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the judgment is revoked. The case is transferred to the Seoul Administrative Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal ex officio prior to judgment.

1. A housing reconstruction and improvement project association (hereinafter “renovation project association”) under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) is a public corporation that implements a housing reconstruction project under the Urban Improvement Act under the supervision of the competent administrative agency (Article 18 of the Urban Improvement Act) and has the status of an administrative agent that performs certain administrative actions within the scope of its purpose as prescribed by law. A management and disposal plan that a reconstruction association establishes under Article 48 of the Urban Improvement Act as an administrative agent pursuant to the status of an administrative agency has a specific and direct influence on the property rights, obligations, etc. of its members by prescribing matters concerning the reversion of rights to a site or building created as a result of the implementation of a rearrangement project, and matters concerning the apportionment of expenses to its members, etc., which constitutes a binding administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Da31235, Feb. 15, 196; Supreme Court Decision 2005Du1951, Sept. 6, 2007).

However, the management and disposal plan is effective only after the reconstruction association prepares a management and disposal plan based on the current status of application for parcelling-out of the association members, undergo the resolution of the general meeting of association and the public inspection of the owners of the land, etc., through the authorization and public announcement of the competent administrative agency (Article 24(3)10, Article 48(1), and Article 49 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents), and the resolution of the general meeting of association on the management and disposal plan is one of the procedural requirements leading to the administrative disposition called the management

Therefore, a lawsuit against a reconstruction association, which is an administrative body, disputes the validity, etc. of the resolution of the general meeting of the association on the management and disposal plan is related to legal relations under public law which directly affects the illegality of administrative disposition according to the result of the lawsuit, and thus, it constitutes a party lawsuit under the Administrative Litigation Act.

In addition, such a lawsuit may prevent a defective management and disposal plan from going into effect as an administrative disposition by obtaining a judgment to nullify the invalidity of the illegal resolution of the general assembly and submitting it to the competent administrative agency as data, or by requiring the reconstruction association to submit a new draft of the management and disposal plan to go through a resolution of the general assembly again. In addition, even in a case where the management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced despite the judgment to nullify the resolution of the general assembly, a dispute may be resolved promptly by using the judgment to nullify the resolution of the general assembly and the evidence in an appeal litigation disputing the validity of the management and disposal plan as litigation materials. Thus, it is necessary to allow prior to the authorization and public notice of

However, inasmuch as a management and disposition plan becomes effective when the competent administrative agency's approval and ruling on the management and disposition plan is made until the time of the approval and ruling of the management and disposition plan, it is necessary to seek revocation or invalidity confirmation of the management and disposition plan by means of an appeal litigation disputing the validity of the administrative disposition on the grounds of defects in the resolution of the general meeting, and to separately remove only one of the procedural requirements leading to the administrative disposition and file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the validity thereof, barring special circumstances

In contrast, Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da13694 Decided July 22, 2004 and those purporting to the same purport are to be amended to the extent inconsistent with this Opinion, which held to the effect that a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the general assembly on the management and disposal plan of the redevelopment cooperative under the Urban Redevelopment Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Act No. 6852, Dec. 30, 2002) shall be filed as a civil lawsuit, and to the extent that they are inconsistent with this Opinion.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the instant lawsuit is a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the general assembly on the management and disposal plan against the Defendant, a reconstruction association under the Urban Improvement Act, and is filed on March 11, 2005, prior to the authorization and public notice of the management and disposal plan. As seen above, this constitutes a party litigation under the Administrative Litigation Act, and thus, the Seoul Administrative Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the instant case.

Nevertheless, the first instance court and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on party litigation under the Administrative Litigation Act, thereby violating the provisions on exclusive jurisdiction. In so doing, the first instance court and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on party litigation under the Administrative Litigation Act.

On the other hand, as long as the approval and public notice of the competent administrative agency on March 18, 2005, which was after the filing of the instant lawsuit, was obtained on March 18, 2005 after the filing of the instant lawsuit, it is impossible to seek confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the general assembly. However, considering the fact that the instant lawsuit can be modified by the revocation lawsuit, etc. against the management and disposition plan with the permission of the administrative court after transfer, it is difficult to view such circumstance alone as an obvious case that the instant lawsuit after transfer is illegal and dismissed, and it is reasonable to transfer the instant case to the competent court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da28960, May 30, 1997; 2007Da25261, Jul. 24,

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court of first instance is reversed ex officio, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the case is transferred to the competent court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Chief Justice Lee Yong-hoon (Presiding Justice)