Plaintiff 1 and four others (Attorney Lee Yong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Ro-1 City Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

September 1, 2011

1. The plaintiffs' primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs, including the costs incurred by the supplementary participation.

In the first place, the Defendant’s disposition of approving the establishment of the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor (hereinafter “participating”) on April 27, 2010 was confirmed to be null and void, and the said disposition of approving the establishment of the association is revoked as preliminary.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 2, 2009, the Mayor of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government designated and publicly announced the 107,534 square meters of the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Street (hereinafter “Road-dong”) as the one-time financial expense promotion zone (the project method: the housing redevelopment project under the Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Act (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) and the instant promotion zone (hereinafter “instant promotion zone”).

B. On January 20, 2009, the Defendant approved the establishment of the Housing Redevelopment Project Promotion Committee (hereinafter “instant promotion committee”) for the Housing Redevelopment Project in the instant promotion zone (hereinafter “instant improvement project”).

C. On April 8, 2010, the instant promotion committee filed an application for authorization to establish an association with 1,033 persons among 1,360 land or building owners or persons with superficies (hereinafter “owners of land, etc.”) within the instant promotion zone, and filed an application with the Defendant for authorization to establish an association.

D. On April 27, 2010, the Defendant approved the establishment of an association by deeming that the consent of 1,035 owners of land, etc. among 1,363 owners of land, etc. in the instant promotion zone was 75.94% (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiffs are owners of land within the instant promotion zone.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul 1, 2, Eul 1, 2, Eul 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion

The instant disposition is merely a supplementary act to supplement the basic act called the establishment of the committee of promoters and to complete its legal effect. Thus, it is no legal interest to seek the invalidity or revocation of the instant disposition on the ground of the defect in the basic act, apart from seeking the invalidity confirmation of the basic act if there is a defect in the basic act.

B. Determination

A disposition to establish an association conducted by an administrative agency based on relevant statutes, such as the Urban Improvement Act, is not merely merely a supplementary act against a private person’s establishment act, but also a kind of authoritative disposition that grants a status as an administrative agent with authority to implement a housing redevelopment project under the Urban Improvement Act if the legal requirements are met. As such, a resolution to establish an association is merely one of the requirements necessary to take an administrative disposition such as the disposition to establish an association, and thus, if there is a defect in the establishment resolution, it is necessary to seek revocation or nullification of the disposition to establish an association through an appeal litigation directly on the ground of the defect (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da60568, Sept. 24, 2009, etc.).

Therefore, if there is a defect in calculating the consent rate as in this case, the defendant's above assertion is without merit, since there is a legal interest to seek nullification or revocation of the approval of establishment.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

In the first place, the instant disposition is revoked, as it fails to meet the consent rate due to the following reasons, as it is significant and apparent that the defect is void as a matter of course, and as such, it should be revoked as it is unlawful even if the defect is not significant and clear:

(1) In the instant promotion zone, at least 1,445 owners of land, etc. were at least 1,445 but the Defendant calculated the consent rate on the premise that the owners of land, etc. were 1,363 owners of land, etc. were omitted by Nonparty 6, etc.

(2) The written consent to establish an association submitted by the instant promotion committee upon filing an application for authorization to establish the association with the Defendant includes written consent to establish an association with another promotion committee (tentatively named apartment promotion committee), which is not the instant promotion committee, or submitted to the previous promotion committee approved prior to the designation and public notice of the promotion zone. Therefore, the said written consent to establish an association has no effect.

(3) Of the owners of land, etc. who agreed to establish an association, approximately 10% of the instant promotion committee prepared and submitted written consent to establish an association by means of the public management of the instant improvement project. Since the promotion committee of this case blanks the said promise, the said 10% of the written consent to establish an association is invalid.

(4) Since the address of the owner of a plot of land, etc. indicated in the written consent for establishing an association submitted by Nonparty 7 and 146 is different from that of the certificate of personal seal impression attached thereto, or the address of the owner of a plot of land, etc. is not indicated in the written consent for establishing an association, the above written consent 14

(5) The Defendant calculated the written consent for establishing an association or the written consent for establishing an association submitted in duplicate by non-owner of land, etc. (specific arguments are examined in the judgment below as to the Plaintiffs’ assertion).

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) After the instant promotion zone was designated and announced, on April 8, 2010, the instant promotion zone was drafted by 1,033 owners of land, etc., and on April 8, 2010, the instant promotion committee applied for establishment authorization by 1,033 owners of land, etc. within the instant promotion zone, with consent to establish an association. Of the owners of land, etc. within the instant promotion zone at the time, Nonparty 6 was 10 square meters and 10 square meters, and Nonparty 21 was 20 square meters and 76 square meters, and Nonparty 22 was 13 square meters and 187 square meters, and Nonparty 187 was 60 square meters and 70 square meters, and Nonparty 23 was the owner of land, etc. (78 square meters omitted) and Nonparty 23 was the owner of land, etc., who did not receive a request to establish an association under the former Enforcement Decree of the Promotion Committee’s Act, and Nonparty 68 square meters and 64 square meters, etc.

(2) The Defendant included Seoul Metropolitan Government and Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as owners of land, etc. and consenters.

(3) The Defendant calculated the number of Nonparty 136 and one owner of a plot of land, etc., who owned Nonparty 136 and three owners of a road (number 35 omitted). However, the building owned by Nonparty 136 was already destroyed at the time of applying for authorization to establish an association.

(4) The instant promotion committee included 68 non-party 104 et al. in the list of the owners of non-party 104 and included 61 persons (7 persons, including 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, etc.) who prepared and submitted a written consent for the establishment of the association among the owners of non-party 1, as indicated in the list of owners of non-party 104, etc., within the instant promotion zone, and the Defendant also calculated the number of owners of land, etc. and the number of consenters by the same method.

(5) Nonparty 19 is the owner of the road (number 17 omitted) and Nonparty 20 is the owner of the road (number 18 omitted) and they are the owners of the road (number 18 omitted). The Defendant calculated the number of the owners of the land, etc. and the number of consenters based on the written consent submitted by Nonparty 19 and Nonparty 20 as the representative owner of the building on the ground that Nonparty 19 and Nonparty 20 are the sole owners of the above land.

(6) On February 12, 2010, prior to the application for authorization to establish a social welfare organization’s association, the Korean government completed the registration of ownership transfer on Non-Party 109 regarding Non-Party 1’s underground floor No. 102 of the street (number 19 omitted), but the Defendant included the social welfare organization’s house in the consenters based on the consent of the Korean government’s house.

(7) Although Nonparty 2 shared Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 3 owned the building No. 1 on the 1st floor of the street (number 23 omitted), Nonparty 2 alone prepared and submitted a written consent to establish the association, and the Defendant included Nonparty 2 in the consent. In addition, Nonparty 103 shared the land with Nonparty 131, etc. (number 40 omitted) and submitted a written consent, and the Defendant included Nonparty 103 in the consent.

(8) Nonparty 1 is the owner of the road (number 80 omitted) and Nonparty 89 is the owner of the road (number 54 omitted) and Nonparty 14 is the owner of the building on the ground. Nonparty 144 was the owner of the road (number 55 omitted) and the Defendant omitted the above three persons from the owner of the land, etc.

(9) 한편, 길음동 (지번 56 생략) 지상 건물 중 102호, 202호의 소유자 소외 145는 2010. 4. 14. 소외 146에게 위 102호에 관한, 길음동 (지번 57 생략) 및 (지번 58 생략) 토지의 소유자 소외 147은 2010. 4. 22. 소외 101에게 위 (지번 58 생략) 토지에 관한, 길음동 (지번 59 생략) 지상 건물 중 제지층 제비1호 및 101호의 소유자 소외 148은 2010. 4. 16. 소외 149에게 위 제지층 제비1호에 관한, 길음동 (지번 20 생략) 지상 건물 중 201호 및 (지번 60 생략) 지상 건물 중 201호의 소유자 소외 110은 2010. 4. 5. 소외 111에게 위 (지번 20 생략) 지상 건물 중 201호에 관한, 길음동 (지번 61 생략) 지상 건물 및 (지번 62 생략) 지상 건물 중 102호의 소유자 소외 150은 2010. 4. 14. 소외 151에게 위 (지번 61 생략) 지상 건물에 관한, 길음동 (지번 63 생략) 지상 건물 중 201호 및 (지번 81 생략) 지상 건물 중 301호의 소유자 소외 152는 2010. 4. 22. 소외 153에게 위 201호에 관한, 길음동 (지번 64 생략) 토지 및 (지번 39 생략) 지상 건물 중 3층 2호의 소유자 소외 154는 2010. 4. 23. 소외 155에게 위 (지번 64 생략) 토지에 관한, 길음동 (지번 65 생략) 지상 건물 중 101호 및 102호의 소유자 소외 156은 2010. 4. 19. 소외 157에게 위 102호에 관한, 길음동 (지번 66 생략) 지상 건물 중 101호, 102호, 103호, 104호, 202호, 203호, 301호, 302호, 303호, 401호 소유자 소외 158은 2010. 4. 26. 소외 159에게 위 101호에 관한, 2010. 4. 22. 소외 46에게 위 102호에 관한, 2010. 4. 20. 소외 160에게 위 103호에 관한, 2010. 4. 20. 소외 161에게 위 104호에 관한, 2010. 4. 23. 소외 162에게 위 202호에 관한, 2010. 4. 20. 소외 163에게 위 203호에 관한, 2010. 4. 23. 소외 164, 165에게 위 301호에 관한, 2010. 4. 16. 소외 166, 167에게 위 302호에 관한, 2010. 4. 20. 소외 168에게 위 303호에 관한, 길음동 (지번 5 생략) 지상 건물 중 가호, 다호의 소유자 소외 169는 2010. 4. 22. 소외 100에게 위 다호 건물에 관한, 길음동 (지번 67 생략) 지상 건물 및 (지번 68 생략), (지번 69 생략) 토지의 소유자 소외 170은 2010. 4. 20. 소외 171에게 위 (지번 68 생략) 토지에 관한, 2010. 4. 5. 소외 99에게 위 (지번 69 생략) 토지에 관한, 길음동 (지번 70 생략) 지상 건물 중 제에이동 1층 1호 및 (지번 71 생략) 지상 건물 중 203호의 소유자 소외 172는 2010. 2. 24. 소외 173, 174에게 위 1층 1호에 관한, 길음동 (지번 72 생략) 지상 건물 및 (지번 73 생략) 지상 건물의 소유자 소외 175는 2010. 4. 19. 소외 176, 177에게 위 (지번 72 생략) 지상 건물에 관한, 길음동 (지번 74 생략) 지상 건물 중 제지하층 제비1호, 제지하층 제비2호, 101호, 201호, 202호, 301호, 401호 소유자 소외 178은 2010. 4. 14. 소외 179에게 위 제지하층 제비1호에 관한, 2010. 4. 14. 소외 180에게 위 제지하층 제비2호에 관한, 2010. 4. 14. 소외 181에게 위 101호에 관한, 2010. 4. 13. 소외 182에게 위 201호에 관한, 2010. 4. 14. 소외 183에게 위 202호에 관한, 2010. 4. 14. 소외 184에게 위 301호에 관한 각 소유권이전등기를 마쳐 주었다.

From the time of filing an application for authorization to establish the instant association, Nonparty 145, 147, 148, 110, 152, 154, 156, 158, 170, 175, and 178 among the owners of land, etc. who transferred each of the said real estate during the disposal date of the instant land from the time of filing the application for authorization to establish the instant association, the instant promotion committee demanded consent to establish the association, but did not separately demand consent from those who acquired the said real estate from them. Meanwhile, Nonparty 150, 169, and 172 from among the transferors did not consent to establish the association.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 41, Eul evidence 42, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 through 35, Eul evidence 4-1 through 14, Eul evidence 6-1 through 50, Eul evidence 7-1, 2, Eul's evidence 9, 10, Eul evidence 12-1 through 29, Eul's evidence 13, 14-1, 15-2, Eul's evidence 15-1, 2, Eul's evidence 16, 18, 19, Eul's evidence 20, 21-1, 21-2, 21-1, 21-1, 3-2, 3-2, and 15-1, 15-2, 16, 17-2, 19, 20-21, 21-2, each of the arguments.

D. Determination

(1) Whether the consent rate is satisfied

(A) According to Article 28(1)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act, it is reasonable to view that Nonparty 6, etc. constitutes “a person whose whereabouts are not verified in cases where the resident registration number was not indicated at the time of entry as the owner and the address is different from the present address” as stipulated in Article 28(1)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act, and thus, the Defendant’s exclusion from Nonparty 6, etc. is lawful.

(B) As to whether the State or a local government is included in a land owner or a consenters, the method of written consent with a certificate of seal impression attached to the certificate of seal impression under Article 17(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas cannot be deemed as required in the case of the State or a local government. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the truth is sufficient to indicate the consent in a reasonable manner that can objectively be verified. Article 66(3) of the Act provides that State or public property within a rearrangement zone may not be sold or transferred for purposes other than a rearrangement project. Article 66(4) of the Act provides that State or public property within a rearrangement zone may be sold or leased for purposes other than a rearrangement project, regardless of the method of a contract under Article 9 of the State Property Act or Article 77 of the Local Finance Act and Article 43 of the Local Finance Act and Article 61 of the Local Finance Act, it is reasonable to view that the defendant, who is the land owner or occupant of this case, also represents the establishment of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and its consent to the establishment or public land.

(C) According to the above facts of recognition (3), since a building jointly owned by Nonparty 136, etc. was already destroyed at the time of applying for authorization to establish an association, one of the owners of land, etc. shall be excluded.

(D) With respect to whether the owner of an unauthorized building is included in the owners of land, etc. under Article 2 subparagraph 9 (a) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, in principle, an unauthorized building should be removed in accordance with relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, even if its owner is qualified as an association member, and thus enabling the owner to enjoy benefits from the implementation of the redevelopment project is not permitted as a result of the illegal act’s profit. In order to facilitate the implementation of the redevelopment project, there are little practical need to regulate the construction of an unauthorized house indisrutly in the rearrangement zone, and if the owner of an unauthorized building is construed as the owner of land, etc. under Article 2 subparagraph 9 (a) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents without permission, considering various circumstances, such as the concern that many owners who constructed the unauthorized building on another’s land might infringe upon the legitimate owner’s property right by forcing the building owner to form the redevelopment project (see Article 2 subparagraph 9 (a) and Article 19 (1) of the Act).29).

Therefore, the owners of an unauthorized building that the Defendant included in the above facts of recognition should be excluded from 68 and 61 each from the owners of the land, etc. and the consenters.

(E) If two co-owners of a certain real estate own one another real estate in addition to the co-owned real estate, if recognizing three owners of a plot of land, etc., the same does not accord with equity compared with the recognition of one owner of a plot of land, etc., and if a separate owner of a real estate owns a separate real estate, even if not recognized as the owner of a plot of land, etc., there is no person at a disadvantage not recognized as the status of the owner of a plot of land, etc. among the owners of the said real estate or co-owners related to

However, according to the above facts of recognition (5), in calculating the number of owners of lands, etc. and the number of consenters against the non-party 19 and the non-party 20, the number of owners of lands, etc. and the number of consenters should be calculated respectively, and one person must be excluded from the owners of lands, etc. and

(F) According to the above facts of recognition (6), since the Republic of Korea's house of a social welfare organization transferred ownership of No. 102 of the underground floor (number 19 omitted) prior to the application for authorization to establish the association, it cannot be deemed a legitimate person entitled to consent. Therefore, since the consent of the name is null and void, it should be excluded from the consent person.

(G) According to paragraph (7) of the above facts, since Nonparty 2 and 103 submitted a written consent to co-owned real estate independently without selecting a representative owner, the written consent shall not be effective, and therefore, the consent shall be excluded from the above two persons.

(h) According to the above facts of recognition (8), Nonparty 1, 89, and 144 should be included in the owners of lands, etc.

(i) Determination of illegality of an administrative disposition should be based on the law and factual state at the time of an administrative disposition. However, in light of the fact that Article 7(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Improvement Act provides that a person who acquired land or a building from a person who agreed to establish an association after the date of applying for authorization to establish an association shall submit the application along with a list of association members and a written consent of the owners of land, etc., and that it is possible to dispose of, divide, or merge the land or building at any time between the disposition of authorization after the application for authorization to establish an association, and that it is difficult for an administrative agency to verify one-day ownership relationship and the intention of consent as of the disposal date, and that Article 28(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Urban Improvement Act provides the period for withdrawal of consent to establish an association, in principle, prior to the date of applying for authorization to establish an

According to the above facts of recognition (9), 28 owners of land, etc. have increased since the time the committee applied for the establishment authorization of this case from the time the committee applied for the establishment authorization of this case to the date of disposition of this case, and Nonparty 111 and 99 have acquired land or buildings before the application for the establishment authorization of this case, and 23 persons have completed the registration of ownership transfer from the transferor who agreed to establish the association of this case. Thus, 28 persons and 23 persons shall be included in the owners of land, etc.

(j) Recalculation the consent rate at the time of the instant disposition

Therefore, the number of the owners of land, etc. who are to be the basis for the consent rate shall be 1,324 [1: - 1 - 68 of subsection (c) - 1 of subsection (d) - 3 of subsection (e) + 28 of subsection (h)]. Among them, 93 93 [1,035 - 61 of subsection (d) - 1 of paragraph (e) - 2 of paragraph (f) - 2 of paragraph (f)], one of paragraph (f) - 75 percent at the consent rate, and 3/4 or more of the owners of land, etc. were satisfied.

(2) Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

(A) Judgment on the first argument of the plaintiffs

The facts that the Defendant did not include Nonparty 1, 99, 100, and 101 in the owners of the land, etc. while rendering the instant disposition are as seen earlier (paragraphs (7) and (8) of the facts acknowledged as above), and comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 9, it can be acknowledged that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor investigated the owners of the land, etc. as 1,450 when designating the promotion zone of this case.

6. 7. 8 of this case's land number No. 1 to 14. 7. 8 of this case's land number No. 6. 6. 8 of this case's land number No. 1 to 7. 8 of this case's land number No. 6. 6. 8 of this case's land number No. 9. 6. 8 of this case's land number No. 9. 6. 7 of this case's land number No. 9 of this case's land number No. 6. 6. 8 of this case's land number No. 7. 9 of this case's land number No. 6. 8 of this case's land number No. 5 of this case's non-party No. 6. 8 of this case's land number No. 97 of this case's land number No. 5 of this case's non-party No. 1 and non-party No. 2 of this case's land

(B) Judgment on the second argument of the plaintiffs

On the other hand, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit, since the promotion committee of this case requested consent from the owners of land, etc. after the designation and public notice of the promotion zone of this case, and submitted it to the defendant. Thus, there is no evidence to find that the defendant was subject to the disposition of this case based on the consent submitted to other promotion committee than the promotion committee of this case or the consent submitted before the designation and public notice of the promotion zone of this case.

(C) Judgment on the third argument by the plaintiffs

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap 5, 6, and 8, the fact that the committee of promotion of this case announced that it will proceed with the improvement project in the public management method scheduled to be introduced around 2010 in the course of obtaining consent to establish an association from the owners of the land, etc.

The head of a Si/Gun may support the process of implementing a project for a rearrangement project prescribed by municipal ordinance of a City/Do in order to enhance transparency and efficiency of a rearrangement project. However, the above provision was newly established on April 15, 2010 and enforced as Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance from July 15, 2010 after the disposition of this case, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments under the above provision was not amended at the time of the disposition of this case (the notice of evidence No. 5 stated that the public management system will be implemented in the future). In light of the fact that it is difficult for owners of land, etc. to deem that the promotion committee of this case gave the consent to establish an association as an expression of intent by mistake or fraud, it cannot be said that there was no consent to establish an association submitted by owners of land, etc. on the ground that the intervenor failed to implement the rearrangement project in the public management method. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion in this part is without merit.

(D) Judgment on the fourth argument by the plaintiffs

According to Article 17(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, consent to establish an association shall be made by means of written consent using a seal imprint and attaching a certificate of personal seal impression. As such, requiring the owner of a plot of land, etc. to attach a document verifying consent matters when submitting a written consent to establish an association is intended to clarify whether he/she has consented with his/her own intent by confirming whether the seal imprint affixed on the written consent for establishment conforms to the seal imprint. Therefore, as long as the seal imprint affixed on the written consent for establishment coincides with the seal imprint affixed on the written consent for establishment, the mere incidental circumstance that the address of the owner of a plot of land, etc. stated in the written consent for establishment is different

(E) Judgment on the plaintiffs' fifth argument

As seen below, some of the owners of lands, etc. claimed by the plaintiffs were excluded from the owners of lands, etc. or consenters, and the remaining arguments by the plaintiffs are without merit.

본문내 포함된 표 토지등 소유자 지번 원고들의 주장 요지 판단 근거 소외 104 (지번 12 생략) 위 지상 건물의 소유자가 아니므로 동의자에서 제외하여야 함 위 지상의 무허가건축물의 소유자이므로 토지등소유자 및 동의자에서 제외하여야 함은 앞서 본 바와 같음 소외 105 (지번 13 생략), (지번 14 생략) 위 각 토지와 (지번 13 생략) 지상 무허가건축물 소유자이므로 동의자 수를 1명으로 산정하여야 하는데 2명으로 산정하였음 (지번 13 생략) 지상 무허가건축물에 대하여 토지등소유자 및 동의자에서 각 1명을 제외하여야 함은 앞서 본 바와 같음 소외 106 (지번 15 생략) 위 토지의 소유자가 아니므로 동의자 수에서 제외하여야 함 2009. 12. 24. 동의서를 제출한 후 2010. 4. 8. 소외 107에게 위 토지를 매도하였으므로 동의자에 포함 을나 4, 6호증의 각 5 소외 108 (지번 16 생략) 위 지상 건물의 소유자가 아니므로 동의자에서 제외하여야 함 위 지상의 무허가건축물의 소유자이므로 토지등소유자 및 동의자에서 제외하여야 함은 앞서 본 바와 같음 소외 19, 소외 20 (지번 17 생략), (지번 18 생략) 소외 19는 (지번 17 생략) 토지의, 소외 20은 (지번 18 생략) 토지의 소유자이고, 이들은 (지번 18 생략) 지상 건물을 공유하고 있으므로, 동의자를 2명으로 산정하여야 하는데 3명으로 산정하였음 토지등소유자 및 동의자에서 각 1명을 제외하여야 함은 앞서 본 바와 같음 사회복지단체 우리집 (지번 19 생략) 위 지상 건물의 구분소유자가 아니므로 동의자 수에서 제외하여야 함 동의자에서 제외하여야 함은 앞서 본 바와 같음 소외 110 (지번 20 생략) 위 지상 건물 중 201호의 소유자가 아니므로 동의자에서 제외하여야 함 2010. 4. 5. 소외 111에게 201호에 관한 소유권이전등기를 마쳐주었으나, 소외 110은 (지번 60 생략) 지상 건물 중 201호도 소유하고 있으므로 동의자에 포함 을나 4, 6호증의 각 12 소외 112 (지번 21 생략) 위 지상 건물은 소외 112, 소외 113, 소외 114 3인의 공유인데도 소외 114의 대표소유자 선임동의서가 누락되어 있으므로 동의자에서 제외하여야 함 소외 114는 2009. 7. 20. 소외 112에게 공유지분에 관한 소유권이전등기를 마쳐주었으므로 소외 112, 소외 113 명의의 대표소유자 선임동의서는 유효함 을나 4, 6호증의 각 13 소외 115 (지번 83 생략) 동의서에 동의자의 주소가 기재되어 있지 않으므로 효력 없음 위 지상 무허가건축물 소유자이므로 토지등소유자 및 동의자에서 제외하여야 함은 앞서 본 바와 같음 소외 4 (지번 22 생략) 동의서에 기재된 주소와 인감증명서상의 주소가 다르므로 효력 없음 효력 있음 소외 2 (지번 23 생략) 위 지상 건물 중 제지1층 제비1호는 소외 3과 공유하고 있음에도 소외 3의 동의 없이 단독으로 동의서를 제출하였으므로 효력 없음 동의서로서의 효력이 없음은 앞서 본 바와 같음 소외 87 (지번 9 생략) (지번 84 생략) 토지의 소유자가 아니므로 동의자에서 제외하여야 함 2009. 2. 3. 동의서를 제출한 후 2010. 4. 19. 소외 86에게 소유권이전등기를 마쳐주었으므로 동의자에 포함, 동의서상의 (지번 84 생략)은 오기로 보임 을나 4호증의 18, 을나 6호증의 20 소외 116 (지번 24 생략) 위 지상 건물에 관한 동의서에 소유권 현황이 기재되어 있지 않으므로 효력 없음 위 지상 건물은 무허가건축물이므로 토지등소유자 및 동의자에서 제외하여야 함은 앞서 본 바와 같음 소외 35 (지번 25 생략) (지번 26 생략) 토지 및 그 지상 건물의 소유자가 아니므로 동의자에서 제외하여야 함 (지번 25 생략) 토지의 소유자이므로 동의자에 포함, 동의서상의 (지번 26 생략)는 오기로 보임 을나 4호증의 20, 을나 6호증의 23 소외 117 (지번 27 생략) 위 지상 건물 중 202호의 소유자가 아니므로 동의자에서 제외하여야 함 위 지상 건물 중 301호의 소유자이므로 동의자에 포함, 동의서상의 202호는 오기로 보임 을나 4호증의 21, 을나 6호증의 25 소외 118 (지번 28 생략) (지번 29 생략) 토지의 소유자가 아니므로 동의자에서 제외하여야 함 (지번 28 생략) 토지의 소유자이므로 동의자에 포함, 동의서상의 (지번 29 생략)는 오기로 보임 을나 4호증의 22, 을나 6호증의 26 소외 119 (지번 85 생략) 소외 120과 위 토지 및 그 지상 건물을 공유하고 있으므로 동의자 수를 1명으로 산정하여야 함에도 2명으로 산정하였음 위 지상 건물은 무허가건축물이므로 토지등소유자 및 동의자에서 각 1명을 제외하여야 함은 앞서 본 바와 같음 소외 121 (지번 31 생략) 동의서에 소유권 현황내역이 기재되어 있지 않으므로 효력 없음 위 지상 건물은 무허가건축물이므로 토지등소유자 및 동의자에서 각 1명을 제외하여야 함은 앞서 본 바와 같음 소외 122, 소외 123 (지번 32 생략), (지번 33 생략) (지번 32 생략) 토지는 소외 122, 소외 123의 공유이고, (지번 32 생략) 지상 건물은 소외 122의 소유이며, (지번 33 생략) 토지 및 그 지상 건물은 소외 123의 소유이므로 동의자를 2명으로 산정하여야 하는데 3명으로 산정하였음 (지번 32 생략) 지상 건물은 무허가건축물로서 토지등소유자 및 동의자에서 각 1명을 제외하여야 함은 앞서 본 바와 같음 주식회사 현대백화점 (지번 34 생략) 외 4필지 동의서상의 인감과 인감증명서상의 인감이 다르므로 효력 없음 주식회사 현대백화점의 사용인감을 날인하였으므로 동의서로서 효력 인정됨 을나 6호증의 37, 을나 7호증의 1,2 소외 5 (지번 5 생략) 동의서상의 주소와 인감증명서상의 주소가 다르므로 효력 없음 효력 있음 소외 124 (지번 35 생략) 동의서상의 인적사항 및 서명날인이 다른 사람으로 되어 있으므로 효력 없음 동의서상의 인적사항이 소외 124의 것이고, 서명날인도 소외 124로 되어 있으므로 유효함 을나 6호증의 42 소외 125, 소외 126 (지번 36 생략) 위 토지 및 그 지상건물은 소외 125, 소외 126의 공유인데도 대표소유자를 선정하지 않은 채 각자 동의서를 제출하였으므로 효력 없음 (지번 36 생략) 토지는 소외 125의, 그 지상 건물은 소외 126의 단독 소유이므로 각자 동의서를 제출한 것은 적법함 을나 4호증의 33, 34, 을나 6호증의 44, 45 소외 127 (지번 37 생략) 위 지상 건물 중 제비01호의 소유자로서 동의서에 주소가 기재되어 있지 않으므로 효력 없음 효력 있음 소외 128 (지번 38 생략) 위 토지의 소유자로서 동의서에 주소가 기재되어 있지 않으므로 효력 없음 효력 있음 소외 129 (지번 39 생략) 위 지상 건물 중 제지하층 제2호의 소유자로서 동의서에 주소가 기재되어 있지 않으므로 효력 없음 효력 있음 소외 130 (지번 39 생략) 위 지상 건물 중 제2층 제2호의 소유자로서 동의서에 주소가 기재되어 있지 않으므로 효력 없음 효력 있음 소외 103 (지번 40 생략) 소외 131 등과 위 토지를 공유하고 있음에도 소외 103이 단독으로 동의서를 제출하였으므로 동의자에서 제외하여야 함 소외 103을 동의자에서 제외하여야 함을 앞서 본 바와 같음 소외 76, 소외 75 (지번 41 생략), (지번 3 생략) 소외 75는 소외 76과 위 각 토지를 공유하고 있음에도 단독으로 동의서를 제출하였으므로 효력 없음 소외 75는 소외 76로부터 대표소유자 선임 동의를 받고 동의서를 제출하였으므로 효력 있음 또한 (지번 41 생략) 지상 건물에 대하여 소외 76을 동의자에 포함시켰으므로 이를 제외하여야 함 또한 (지번 41 생략) 지상 건물은 무허가건축물로서 토지등소유자 및 동의자에서 제외하여야 함은 앞서 본 바와 같음 소외 132, 소외 133 (지번 42 생략) 소외 132는 소외 133과 위 토지상의 건물 중 102호를 공유하고 있음에도 단독으로 동의서를 제출하였으므로 효력 없음 소외 132는 소외 133로부터 대표소유자 선임 동의를 받고 동의서를 제출하였으므로 효력 있음 소외 134, 소외 135 (지번 43 생략) 소외 134는 소외 135와 위 토지를 공유하고 있음에도 단독으로 동의서를 제출하였으므로 효력 없음 소외 134는 소외 135로부터 대표소유자 선임 동의를 받고 동의서를 제출하였으므로 효력 있음

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' primary and conjunctive claims of this case are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Jin Chang-soo (Presiding Judge)