The method of examining whether the administrative agency, upon receipt of an application for authorization to establish redevelopment cooperatives, satisfies the requirements for consent of the owner of the land stipulated in Article 35 (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and whether the consent of the redevelopment project promotion committee to establish the association by the owner of the land, etc. pursuant to the "written consent to establish the association" under Article 8 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents" can be deemed null and void on the sole basis of the fact that the committee did not fully provide specific information or data necessary for calculating the estimated amount of contributions for each owner of the land, etc. other

In light of the contents, structure, and legislative intent of Article 35(2), (7), and (8) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Act”) related to the consent and authorization of redevelopment cooperatives, Article 30(1), (2), and Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”), and Article 8(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”) (attached Form 6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”), the administrative agency, upon receipt of an application for authorization for the establishment of redevelopment cooperatives, shall confirm whether the committee has obtained consent from landowners pursuant to Article 8(3) of the Enforcement Rule [attached Form 6] (hereinafter “written consent”), (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and (3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Residents’s.

In addition, if the promotion committee obtained the consent of the establishment of the association from the owner of land, etc. in accordance with the legal consent form, the consent to establish the association shall be deemed lawful and effective in accordance with the procedures and methods stipulated in the Urban Improvement Act. The mere fact that the detailed estimated amount of contributions by each owner of land, etc. was not stated in the complex form, or that the promotion committee did not fully provide specific information or data necessary for calculating estimated amount of contributions for each owner of land, etc. in addition to its form, the consent of the owner of individual

Article 35(2), (7), (8), Article 36(1), (2), and (4) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 30(1), (2), Article 32, and Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 8(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (attached Form 6

Supreme Court Decision 2011Du8291 Decided December 26, 2013 (Gong2014Sang, 317) Supreme Court Decision 2012Du2904 Decided April 24, 2014

Plaintiff (Appointed Party) (Law Firm Choun, Attorneys Park Il-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appointed party-appellant)

Head of the Geumcheon-gu Busan Metropolitan Government (Attorney Park Jong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan District Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Park Jong-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2019Nu21955 decided May 8, 2020

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Case summary and key issue

A. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following circumstances.

(1) On January 6, 2006, the Promotion Committee for the Establishment of Housing Redevelopment Project Cooperatives in Sub-Blue 2 District (hereinafter “instant Promotion Committee”) obtained approval from the Defendant for organizing the Promotion Committee.

(2) On September 8, 2018, the instant promotion committee held an inaugural general meeting, and on September 10, 2018, applied for authorization to establish an association with the consent of 713 persons among 940 land owners (75.85% of the consent rate). On October 29, 2018, the Defendant approved the establishment of the Defendant’s auxiliary intervenor (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. The key issue of this case is whether a promotion committee’s consent to the establishment of an association by landowners, such as land, can be deemed null and void solely on the ground that it did not sufficiently provide owners with information, such as estimated contributions, before obtaining consent necessary for the establishment of an association, in cases where the promotion committee obtained consent

2. Relevant provisions and legal principles

A. The summary of the provisions of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the Enforcement Rule thereof, the Enforcement Rule thereof (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) or the Act, the Enforcement Rule, the “Enforcement Rule”, and the “Enforcement Rule” related to the consent and authorization of the redevelopment association is as follows.

(1) To establish a redevelopment project association, at least 3/4 of the owners of the land, etc., and at least 1/2 of the area of the land shall obtain authorization from the head of a Si/Gun, etc. with the consent of landowners, along with “articles of association”, “documents related to the rearrangement project cost and other documents prescribed by Ordinance of the City/Do” and “other documents prescribed by Ordinance of the City/Do” (Article 35(2))

(2) The consent of the owners of land, etc. to establish an association shall be obtained by obtaining consent from the “written consent prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport” (Article 35(7) of the Act, and Article 30(1) of the Enforcement Decree), and the written consent prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall include “a summary of the design of the building to be constructed”, “maintenance project cost, such as construction cost (hereinafter “maintenance project cost”), “standards for sharing rearrangement project cost”, “matters concerning ownership after completion of the project”, and “the articles of association of the association” (Article 30(

According to delegation, the term “written consent form for establishing an association” under Article 8(3) of the Enforcement Rule (hereinafter referred to as “legal consent form”) refers to the following: (a) details of consent consisting of 1. The outline of the construction of a new building; (b) the cost for the improvement project, such as the construction cost; (c) the allotment of sectional ownership of a new building; (d) the consent to the selection of the president of the association; (c) the approval of the articles of association; and (d) the implementation plan of the improvement project; and (c) the approval of the articles of association of the association; and (c) the implementation plan of the improvement project; and (d) the estimated amount of contributions by person eligible for parcelling-out: (c) the estimated amount of contributions by person eligible for parcelling-out = (e) the estimated amount of contributions by person eligible for parcelling-out = (e.g., the price of the previous land and buildings for each person eligible for parcelling-out 】 the estimated rate of proportional shares by person eligible for parcelling-out * the proportion ratio* the total project cost and the total value of the building.”

(3) Before obtaining the consent necessary for the establishment of the association, the promotion committee shall provide the owner of the land, etc. with the “information prescribed by City/Do Ordinance regarding the estimated amount of and basis for calculation of the allotted charges by each owner of the land, etc.” and “other estimated allotted charges” (Article 35(8) of the Act and Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree).

B. (1) The purport of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions set forth in the Enforcement Rule is to prevent disputes surrounding the form or content of a written consent by prescribing the form of a written consent instead of the standard written consent provided by the public notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation in the past in the Act and subordinate statutes, and by compelling an administrative agency to examine whether the written consent was met only based on the written consent submitted at the time of application for authorization to establish a redevelopment association, thereby preventing unnecessary administrative power to confirm whether the written consent was given (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Du4845, Jan. 28, 2010; 201Du8291, Dec. 26, 2013).

In addition, in general, the proportional ratio should be calculated in order to estimate the estimated shares of each owner, such as land and buildings in the rearrangement zone. It is possible to estimate the total project cost, such as the evaluation of the land and buildings (previous assets), the preparation of the approximate project plan and the sale plan for apartment units and households, and the construction cost. The Urban Improvement Act only stipulates that the appraisal of the previous and subsequent assets shall be conducted at the stage of formulating the management and disposal plan after the establishment of the project plan after the process for application for parcelling-out after the establishment of the project plan (Article 74(1)3 and 5 of the Act). In the stage of the establishment of the promotion committee with the consent of the promotion committee, since the appraisal of the previous and subsequent assets is not conducted without the appraisal of the cost and revenues of the rearrangement project, it is difficult to estimate the approximate estimate of the cost and revenues of the rearrangement project. It is reasonable and reasonable to specify only the detailed estimate of the estimated shares for each owner, such as land or the proportional ratio, without considering such a reasonable and reasonable result.

(2) In full view of the contents, structure, legislative purport, etc. of the provisions regarding the consent and authorization of the redevelopment association, the administrative agency in receipt of an application for authorization of the redevelopment association shall examine whether the requirements for the consent of the owner of the land, etc. are satisfied by calculating the number of consenters pursuant to Article 36(4) of the Act, and Article 35(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act by calculating the number of consenters pursuant to Article 33 of the Act and Article 35(2) of the Enforcement Decree.

In addition, if the promotion committee obtained the consent of the owner of land, etc. to establish the association based on the legal consent, the consent to establish the association shall be deemed lawful and effective in accordance with the procedures and methods stipulated in the Urban Improvement Act. The mere fact that the detailed estimated amount of contributions by each owner of land, etc. was not stated in the relevant complex form, or that the promotion committee did not fully provide specific information or data necessary for calculating the estimated amount of contributions for each owner of land, etc. in addition to its form, the consent of the owner of land, etc. cannot be deemed null and void (see Supreme Court Decisions 2011Du8291, Dec. 26, 2013; 2012Du2904, Apr. 24, 2014, etc.).

3. Determination as to the instant case

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the instant promotion committee obtained consent from landowners, etc. to establish an association in accordance with the written consent from the owners of the land, etc., and the phrase “a summary of the design of a new building” in the said written consent form includes the following information: (a) the size of the site is 125,797 square meters; (b) the total floor area is 300,820.73 square meters; and (c) the cost incurred in the rearrangement project, such as construction cost, is about KRW 5.3 billion; and (d) approximately KRW 304.8 billion for new construction cost; and (e) approximately KRW 152.2 billion for other project costs.

As long as the committee of promotion of this case has obtained consent from the owner of land, etc. in accordance with the legal consent, the consent to establish the association of the owner of land, etc. shall be deemed valid unless there are special circumstances suspected that the individual consent has been forged or altered or that the consent is authentic.

B. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant promotion committee’s implementation of its duty to provide information, such as estimated contributions, pursuant to Article 35(8) of the Act before obtaining consent from the owners of the land, etc. before obtaining consent from the establishment of the association, cannot be deemed as having fulfilled the duty to provide information, and on this ground, determined that all

The lower judgment erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity of the consent to establish an association under the Urban Improvement Act, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment] List of the Appointors: Omitted

Justices Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Justice)