Whether a majority of the owners of land, etc. who consent to dissolution of the promotion committee, other than himself/herself, can report dissolution for the promotion committee for the housing reconstruction improvement project established under Article 13 (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents

Articles 13(2), 15(2), and 5(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 2006-330 of August 25, 2006)

A committee for promotion of the establishment of an association for housing reconstruction rearrangement project (Attorney Seo-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Seo-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City

Daejeon High Court Decision 2008Nu387 decided July 24, 2008

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The judgment of the court below

In full view of the selected evidence, the court below acknowledged 20 persons among 378 owners of land, etc. (hereinafter “owner of the land, etc. of this case”) of 82,05 square meters in Seo-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon (82-2) as the association establishment promotion committee in order to promote the housing reconstruction project of 2, 200, and approved the establishment pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Do Government Act”) on October 12, 2006. The non-party, the owner of the land, etc. of this case, with the consent of 193 owners of the land, etc. of this case, can be deemed to have obtained the above report of dissolution to the defendant on July 4, 2007 (hereinafter “the report of dissolution of this case”), and determined that the defendant, upon the consent of the promotion committee’s dissolution or dissolution of the association of 3,000 square meters prior to the dissolution or dissolution of the promotion committee (hereinafter “the dissolution or dissolution of the promotion committee”).

2. Judgment of party members

Article 13(2) of the Do Government Act provides that a promotion committee for a housing reconstruction project to be established with the consent of a majority of owners of land, etc. and the approval of the head of a Si/Gun shall have the substance as a non-corporate association composed of promoters. However, there is an essential difference with other organizations, such as land that cannot be dissolved by a resolution of promoters who are not its members. In the event the promotion committee establishes an association, the owners of land, etc. in the rearrangement zone who do not consent to the formation of the promotion committee can be deemed to have a direct and specific interest as to the existence of the promotion committee, such as comprehensive succession of rights and obligations related to the affairs performed by the promotion committee under Article 15(4) of the Do Government Act. Article 5(3) of the Management Rules for the Establishment of the promotion committee of the promotion committee (No. 2006-330 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation amended on August 25, 206) provides that the person who has consented to dissolution of the promotion committee, such as dissolution of the promotion committee.

Nevertheless, the court below held that a majority of the owners of land, etc., who consented to the dissolution of the promotion committee cannot file a report of dissolution under Article 5 (3) of the above operating regulations. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the subject of the report of dissolution of the promotion committee under Article 5 (3) of the operating regulations of the promotion committee of the promotion committee, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)