Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Jeong-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Mountainous, Attorneys Jeon Jong-il et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

October 23, 2008

1. On February 20, 2008, the part of the plaintiffs' action against Defendant Gold-gu and 11 Housing Redevelopment Association seeking revocation or nullification of the revised management and disposition plan, and the plaintiffs' action against the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office shall be dismissed, respectively.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against Defendant Gold and Eleven Housing Redevelopment Association are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A claim against Defendant Gold and Eleven Housing Redevelopment Cooperatives: A disposition to revise the management and disposal plan authorized by the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on February 20, 2008 by Defendant Geum-gu and Han Housing Redevelopment Cooperatives on February 20, 208, and a disposition to transfer and publicly notify on March 25, 2008 shall be revoked as preliminaryly. A disposition to revise the management and disposal plan authorized by the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office on February 20, 2008 and the transfer and public notice on March 25, 2008 shall be confirmed as invalid.

A claim against the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government: The head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government shall confirm on April 7, 2004 that the disposition to authorize the management and disposal plan against the defendant gold and 11 Housing Redevelopment Association is invalid.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government was designated and publicly announced as a gold and 11 district housing redevelopment district on January 15, 2001 by the Seoul Metropolitan Government Notice No. 2001-6 on January 15, 2001, and Defendant Gold and 11 district Housing Redevelopment Association (hereinafter “Defendant Cooperatives”) was a project implementer who implemented the said housing redevelopment project after obtaining authorization to establish the association on July 4, 2001 and authorization to implement the said housing redevelopment project on October 5, 2002.

B. Nonparty 1 and Plaintiff 1 are 1/2 equity right holders of Geum-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul (number 1 omitted), and their ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as “one building”). Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are 1/2 equity right holders of the same (number 2 omitted), and 1/2 equity right holders of the same (number 2 omitted) and the above ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as “second building”) respectively, and are the members of the Defendant Union.

C. On December 4, 2002, the Defendant Union publicly announced the expiration date of application for parcelling-out to its members for parcelling-out. Nonparty 1 and the Plaintiffs (hereinafter the Plaintiff et al.) asserted that each of the above buildings constitutes multi-family houses registered by household units on December 2, 2002, the above building constitutes multi-family houses, and accordingly, applied for parcelling-out to Plaintiff 1 among the apartment houses to be constructed in the instant district (hereinafter the apartment houses of this case) on a scale of 41.01 square meters (based on the exclusive use area) and to Nonparty 1, 2, and 31.06 square meters (based on the exclusive use area of each 84.60 square meters), each of which was sold to Nonparty 1, 2, and 31. The Defendant Union held a general meeting of its members on September 30, 2003 (hereinafter the general meeting of this case) and received a resolution from the Administrator of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter the Plaintiff et al.) to manage the apartment (hereinafter the Defendant 4.).

D. Meanwhile, among the members of the Defendant Union, the co-ownership right holder classified as the object of liquidation was 82 persons including the Plaintiff, and the instant general meeting passed a resolution to determine 78 households, other than 5 households in legal withholding facilities, as the facilities for litigation, in preparation for the possibility of changing the said co-ownership right holder to the object of sole sale later. The first management disposition plan (the proposal) adopted at the time determined that the withheld facilities should be included in the portion of parcelling-out of cooperative members. As to the standards for parcelling-out of cooperative members, as stipulated in Article 52(1)2 of the Union’s articles of association, “where an apartment house of a size equivalent to the amount of rights adjacent to a partner is sold in lots and an adjacent apartment house value is two, the person subject to the disposition plan (Article 6(1)2 of the Administrative Disposition Criteria) can be allocated a large amount of 50% of the total number of houses constructed in question to the person subject to sale exceeding the national housing scale (Article 6(1)2 of the same Act).

(1) A management and disposal plan (draft) adopted on September 30, 2003

본문내 포함된 표 전용면적 59.39㎡ 59.90㎡ 59.99㎡ 84.55㎡ 84.60㎡ 84.87㎡ 106.06㎡ 114.55㎡ 114.80㎡ 합계 (평형) (23.49평형) (23.06평형) (22.03평형) (30.53평형) (31.06평형) (30.99평형) (38.01평형) (41.20평형) (41.01평형) 토지등소유자 ？ ？ 109 26 41 274 2 44 42 535 보 류시설 (3)* ？ ？ ？ 1 ？ ？ 1 ？ 2(5)* 일반분양 28 74 158 ？ ？ ？ ？ 45 43 348 합계 28 74 267 26 42 274 2 90 85 888

* In the above management and disposal plan (draft), three households among withholding facilities are to be determined at 23.49 square meters, but the above square is deemed to have been virtually omitted because there was no cooperative share, and in the management and disposal plan authorized on April 7, 2004, it seems that the above three households, which were determined as withholding facilities at the beginning, were additionally allocated to 22.03 square meters in which the cooperative share was divided.

(2) A management and disposition plan authorized on April 7, 2004

본문내 포함된 표 전용면적 59.39㎡ 59.90㎡ 59.99㎡ 84.55㎡ 84.60㎡ 84.87㎡ 106.06㎡ 114.55㎡ 114.80㎡ 합계 (평형) (23.49평형) (23.06평형) (22.03평형) (30.53평형) (31.06평형) (30.99평형) (38.01평형) (41.20평형) (41.01평형) 토지등소유자 ？ ？ 93 26 36 274 1 45 42 517 보류시설 법정 ？ ？ 3 ？ 1 ？ 1 ？ ？ 5 소송 ？ ？ 73 ？ 5 ？ ？ ？ ？ 78 일반분양 28 74 98 ？ ？ ？ ？ 45 43 288 합계 28 74 267 26 42 274 2 90 85 888

E. (1) On December 29, 2003, the Plaintiff et al. filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Administrative Court against the Defendant Mutual Aid Association seeking revocation of the part against the Plaintiff et al. (2003Guhap40474) out of the first management disposition plan. The above court accepted the Plaintiff et al.’s assertion on June 10, 2004 and rendered a favorable judgment. Although the Defendant Mutual Aid Association appealed, the Seoul High Court sentenced the dismissal of appeal on September 15, 2005, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(2) In addition, on January 27, 2004, 59 of the co-ownership shares among the co-ownership shares among the co-ownership shares of the members of the defendant union were purchased from the defendant union from the Dong branch of the Seoul District Court on January 27, 2004, 20 square-type apartment units (22.03 square-type, 23.06 square-type, 23.49 square-type, 29 among the members of the defendant union, 30 square-type apartment units (30.53 square-type, 31.06 square-type, 38.01 square-type, 38.01 square-type, 20 square-type apartment units).

F. (1) Of the instant apartment units, Plaintiff 1, 2, and 3 filed an application against the Defendant for provisional disposition against the prohibition of sale and the prohibition of selling the right to sell the apartment units against Nonparty 1, 2, and 3 on the 38.01 square meters. On May 11, 2006, the Seoul East Eastern District Court issued a provisional disposition against Nonparty 1, 2, and 3 on the 31.06 square meters on the 31.06 square meters on the 22.03 square meters (206Kahap721).

(2) On October 18, 2007, 11.5, January 24, 2008, the Defendant Union notified the Plaintiff, etc. that the Plaintiff, etc. visited the Plaintiff Association to sell the unit of 31.06 square meters and the 22.03 square meters each of the instant apartment units, and notified the Plaintiff, etc. of the fact that the Plaintiff, etc. would buy the unit of 31.06 square meters and the 22.03 square meters each of them. However, the Plaintiff, etc. did not comply with this.

G. Although the Defendant Union was deemed to be the subject of liquidation, it revised the management and disposition plan on February 20, 2008 to the co-owner of the co-ownership right (hereinafter “the co-ownership right holder of the instant apartment”) that he/she was found to have the right to purchase the instant apartment by himself/herself through the aforementioned voluntary conciliation procedures or litigation procedures, etc., and reported it to the head of Sungdong-dong on February 20, 208 (hereinafter “the second management and disposition plan”). There was no fact that the Defendant Union held a general meeting of partners separately to resolve the second management and disposition plan.

H. On March 24, 2008, when the representatives and directors of the Defendant Union attended, they provisionally decided that the Plaintiff 1 remains as withholding facilities (No. 1 omitted) (No. 31.06 square meters) (No. 22.06 square meters) (No. 22.06 square meters), (No. 22.06 square meters) (No. 22.06 square meters) (No. 22.06 square meters) (No. 22.06 square meters) were allocated to Nonparty 1, and (No. 42.06 square meters) (No. 2.06 square meters) (No. 2.06 square meters) with respect to the shares of Nonparty 1 in the instant land and building, the Defendant Association did not enter into a seizure registration of the National Health Insurance Corporation (No. 21, 2007) with the Defendant Association, and did not have any fact that the sales contract was concluded with the Defendant Association.

I. On March 25, 2008, the Defendant Cooperative announced the transfer of the instant housing redevelopment project pursuant to Article 54 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Residents' Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “the instant transfer announcement”). The main contents are as follows. The said transfer announcement is accompanied by a written notice of the modification of the report on the modification of the management and disposal plan.

4. Date of approval for the management and disposal plan: April 10, 2004 (Initial Change) and February 20, 2008 (Change).

5. Date of public announcement of work completion: August 9, 2007;

6. Details of transfer announcement; and

(a) Area of the building site by use;

Sale facilities: 39,062.0 square meters, public facilities: 9,093 square meters (road: 4,525.4 square meters, parks: 4,568.0 square meters).

(b) Details of building facilities by type and scale;

-scale: 13 units of apartment and 18 floors, 4 units of apartment and 13 units of apartment and 88 units of apartment and housing;

-Building floor area: 131,621.41 square meters;

(c) Number of right holders eligible for parcelling-out by site or building facility;

-members of the Union: 600 persons (including legal withholding facilities 5 and 3 facilities for litigation withholding);

-general buyers: 288 persons;

(j) When only the remaining persons eligible for parcelling-out except the co-ownership share of this case among the members of the Defendant Union (hereinafter the previous persons eligible for parcelling-out), the order of priority by plaintiffs 1 and 399 (the value of rights 75,221,00 won), plaintiff 2 and 423 (the value of rights 69,64,300 won), and plaintiff 3 and 416 (the value of rights 70,886,100 won) among co-ownership share of this case, the value of rights by plaintiffs 1 and 29 members who participated in the voluntary mediation procedure set forth in paragraph (2) of the above Article and non-party 2, 3, 4, and 5 who did not participate in the above voluntary mediation procedure is higher than the value of rights by plaintiffs 1 and 1.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, 2-4, 6, 7, 8, 10, Eul evidence 1-1 to 4, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part on the revocation or invalidation of the management and disposition plan among the lawsuit against the defendant union and the lawsuit against the head of Seongdong-gu Office is legitimate;

Article 54 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Do Government Act"), a project implementer shall notify a person entitled to parcelling-out of the matters prescribed in the management and disposal plan pursuant to Article 54 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Do Government Act"), transfer the ownership of the site or structure, and when the contents are publicly notified in the official report of the relevant local government-invested organization, only a part of the plan shall not be removed or modified unless all the procedures are followed from the beginning, and the modification of the management and disposal plan for the partial modification of the transfer public announcement may be possible only before the transfer public announcement is made, so the modification of the management and disposal plan cannot be

As seen earlier, since the transfer announcement of this case became effective upon the announcement on March 25, 2008, as seen earlier, the part seeking invalidation or cancellation of the management and disposition plan of this case, which was made as of April 7, 2004 to the head of Seongdong-gu with respect to the Defendant Union, and the part seeking invalidation or cancellation of the management and disposition of this case, which was made as of April 7, 2004 to the head of Seongdong-gu, is unlawful (In addition, since the management and disposition plan of this case was modified to the management and disposition plan of this case as of February 20, 208, and its effect took effect upon the authorization obtained on February 20, 208, the lawsuit against the head of Seongdong-gu has no interest in the lawsuit against the head of the management and disposition of this case. On the other hand, since there is no dispute between the plaintiffs as to the sole purchaser of the apartment of this case, and the remaining reserved land is smaller than all claimed by the plaintiffs, it does not affect the judgment that the third generation of lawsuit remains in common reserved land).

3. Whether the transfer announcement of this case is lawful

A. All defenses and judgment on the merits of the Defendant Union

In the event that there is an error in the transfer announcement, the Defendant Union can only confirm the existence of legal relationship or seek compensation for damages in accordance with the civil procedure on the ground of its illegality, and cannot seek revocation or invalidation of the part. Since the Plaintiffs seek revocation or invalidation of the part against the Plaintiffs in the transfer announcement of this case, they asserted that the part seeking revocation or invalidation of the transfer announcement of this case is unlawful.

However, in light of the following, the Plaintiffs’ assertion to the effect that the transfer announcement of this case is unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the entire transfer announcement of this case should be invalid or cancelled as it is unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the entire transfer announcement of this case should be invalid or cancelled as it is unlawful on the ground that there is an unlawful ground for the invalidation of the whole transfer notification of this case among the members of the Defendant Union in the first and second management disposition plan.

Therefore, the above argument of the defendant union is without merit.

B. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that the transfer announcement of this case is unlawful on the ground as follows, based on the authorization disposition of this case, and the second management disposition plan, which is void automatically, or based on the second management disposition plan, or that the transfer announcement of this case itself has any defect in the grounds for illegality of the transfer announcement of this case (the plaintiffs asserted that the transfer announcement of this case has any defect in the grounds for revocation in the first management disposition plan and the second management disposition plan of this case, but, as seen in paragraph (d) below, as long as the first management disposition plan of this case, the authorization disposition of this case, and the second management disposition plan cannot be deemed to be null and void automatically, the first management disposition plan of this case had any defect in the existence of the grounds for revocation, and the defect in the grounds for revocation of the first management disposition plan is not succeeded to the second management disposition plan of this case, and the first management disposition plan of this case does not have any defect in the first management disposition plan or the second management disposition plan of this case.

(1) Forced invalidity of the 1 management disposition plan

① Article 48(3) of the Do administration Act provides, “Where there is a remainder after receiving the application for parcelling-out under Article 46, the project implementer may designate as a reserved land (including buildings) for the purpose prescribed by the articles of incorporation or the project implementation plan, or sell in lots to persons other than the members of the association.” Therefore, the withheld facilities and the general allotment may be determined only where there is a remainder after receiving the application for parcelling-out. Therefore, it is unlawful to set aside 45 households and 43 households in general, even if there is no remainder for the apartment of 41.20 square and 41.01 square as a result of the application for parcelling-out, even if there is no remainder for the apartment of 41.20 square and 41.01 square as a result of the application for parcelling-out. Furthermore, the Defendant Union did not include the Plaintiff, etc. in the 7

② The Defendant Union omitted matters concerning the estimated value of the site or structure to be sold to each person subject to sale (Article 48(1)3 of the Do Administration Act) for the entire buyers.

(2) Forced invalidity of the instant authorization disposition

Unlike the contents resolved at the general meeting of the instant case, the Defendant Union did not include 23.49 square-type 3 households, 41.20 square-type 1 households, and applied for authorization to change the content of the first management and disposition plan to 600 households in the share of the association members, and 288 households in the share of the general share of the association members. Although the Defendant Union applied for authorization to change the management and disposition plan as above without a separate general meeting resolution, the head of Seongdong-gu administration authorized it only.

(3) Forced invalidity of the 2nd management disposition plan

① The Defendant Union did not apply for parcelling-out or applied for parcelling-out after the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out, sold 40 square meters (41.01 square meters, 41.20 square meters) apartment units to 8 households, including Nonparty 6, etc. who applied for parcelling-out, and sold only 66 households among 87 households of the unit unit of 40 square meters apartment units in violation of the management and disposal plan, and it is unlawful for the Defendant Union to assign 88 households to the general unit without any ground in violation of Article 48(3) of the Do administration Act. Therefore, Plaintiff 1 has the right to purchase a 40-presidential apartment units.

In addition, the value of the right was 65,985,00 that was 65,00, the non-party 7 purchased the 31.06-type apartment and the non-party 7's right was 430 ranking, and therefore, the plaintiff 2 and the 3 naturally have the right to receive the 30-type apartment.

(2) The management and disposal plan under Article 2 is to change the plaintiffs from persons subject to clearing to those subject to parcelling-out, which shall undergo a resolution at a general meeting of partners pursuant to Articles 48, 24 (3) 10, and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, but the defendant union did not have

③ The Defendant Union omitted the matters regarding the “pro rata value of the site or structure scheduled for parcelling-out by each subject of parcelling-out,” and did not specify the Plaintiffs the “pro rata value of the site or structure scheduled for parcelling-out by each subject of parcelling-out,” and violated Article 48(1)3 of the Do administration Act by stating only the “pro rata value of the site or structure scheduled for parcelling-out” to the Plaintiffs.

④ Even though the first management and disposal plan excluded the Plaintiff et al. from litigation withholding facilities, 78 households other than the Plaintiff et al. were changed to be sold in lots, only 74 households were changed to be sold in lots and 4 households remaining remaining as if they were sold in lots to the Plaintiff et al

(4) Defects in the transfer notification itself

① The Defendant Union, in violation of the content of the 2nd management and disposition plan, in which the 4 facilities to withhold the lawsuit were set up, made three facilities to withhold the lawsuit, and, without disclosing any apartment (e.g., square and heading) specifically, deprived the Plaintiffs of the opportunity for seeking the right of the Plaintiffs by setting the “facilities to withhold the lawsuit” as “3 facilities to withhold the lawsuit.” This is contrary to the nature of the transfer announcement.

② The Defendant Union without paying relocation expenses to the Plaintiffs, and without being delegated with the authority to dispose of the buildings Nos. 1, 2, 1, and 2, removed the first and second buildings without permission and cancelled the registration of transfer of shares in the first and second land.

(c) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

D. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Method of judgment

The plaintiffs are seeking revocation and confirmation of invalidity around the notification of the transfer of this case, but they are actually the same in fact as the grounds for both claims, so they are judged at once as the primary claim and the preliminary claim are all made.

(2) General criteria to determine whether an administrative disposition is void automatically

In order for the administrative disposition to be called null and void as a matter of course, it is not sufficient to say that there is an illegal cause, that the defect is a serious violation of the important part of the law, and it must be objectively obvious. In order to determine whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law should be considered from a teleological perspective and reasonable consideration of the specificity of the specific

(3) Whether the 1 management disposition plan is void as a matter of course

① First, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant Union’s establishment of 88 households of 40 square-type apartment units was unlawful. However, the status or specific rights and obligations of the redevelopment association shall be determined by the relevant statutes and the articles of association, and Article 52 of the Articles of association of the Defendant Union was enacted pursuant to the former Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Urban Redevelopment Project at the time of the establishment of the Defendant Union (amended by Ordinance No. 4167 of Dec. 30, 2003) and the resolution of the members’ general meeting. Thus, it is difficult to view that there is any defect in determining 88 households of 177 households exceeding the national housing scale among the instant apartment units pursuant to Article 52(1)2 of the said Articles of association and the instant provisions decided at the instant general meeting (Article 48(3) of the Jeju Special Metropolitan City Act provides that the project implementer may determine part of the apartment units to be constructed due to the redevelopment project as the reserved land or the general unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit.

In addition, the defendant union passed a resolution at the general meeting of this case to determine a total of 83 households (5 households in legal withholding facilities, 78 households in litigation withholding facilities) in preparation for the possibility that 82 persons with the co-ownership right of the defendant union will be converted to the single unit unit, and it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff et al. also included in the above withholding facilities subject to consideration of the above withholding facilities (the plaintiff's assertion is illegal to exclude the plaintiff et al. from 78 households in withholding facilities). However, the withholding facilities are prepared for cases where additional sale is anticipated due to the modification of the management and disposition plan due to the reasons such as omission and error in the objects of sale, etc., and according to the above facts, no difference is found between the withholding facilities in this case and the

Furthermore, the redevelopment partnership is merely to determine the scale of parcelling-out in accordance with the relevant laws and the standards for parcelling-out stipulated in the articles of association, but not to be bound by the contents of the application for parcelling-out (the purport of Article 48(1) of the Do government Act to determine the management and disposal plan based on the current status of the application for parcelling-out to the developer of the redevelopment project seems to be merely the purport of respecting the intent of the association members). As seen later, it is not likely that the plaintiff 1 has the right to purchase the 41.01 square apartment house, and therefore, it cannot be deemed illegal to not completely assign the 41.0

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

② In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in the evidence No. 6, No. 6, and No. 3, in order to resolve the first management and disposal plan, it is recognized that the sale price of the apartment of this case (the unit sale of the apartment of this case) is specified in the amount calculated by stating the cost (the cost for the site and the construction cost and the cost for the implementation of the project) based on the appraisal of the appraised value requested by appraisal business entities under the Act on the Public Notice of Land Price and Land, etc. and non-party 8, and non-party 9, and the appraisal price for the apartment of this case (the cost for the construction of the site and the cost for the implementation of the project), and the distribution rate determined based on the above management and disposal plan was specified after calculating the appraised value of the previous land and buildings owned by all the members before formulating the above management

According to the above facts, although it was not specifically specified in the management and disposition plan for the first management of apartment units, each member could have anticipated the size of apartment units to be sold to himself/herself by taking account of the amount of his/her right, which is the standard price for the sale of apartment units, and the level of the application for parcelling-out. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the first management and disposition plan for the first management determined "the estimated value of the site or building, which is the scheduled price for parcelling-out for each subject of parcelling-out." Therefore,

③ Ultimately, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the first management disposition plan is void as a matter of course is groundless.

(4) Whether the instant authorization disposition is void as a matter of course

The administrative agency's authorization on the management and disposal plan is a supplement act to complete the legal effect of the partnership's management and disposal plan, and as long as the first management and disposal plan cannot be deemed as null and void automatically, there must be a serious and obvious defect in the approval disposition itself in order to become null and void automatically.

However, as alleged by the plaintiffs, although the defendant union revised the contents of the 1 management and disposal plan without going through a separate general meeting of partners and applied for the authorization, it is deemed that the head of Seongdong-gu Office approved the change of the contents of the 1 management and disposal plan without going through a separate general meeting of partners. ① Although the 1 management and disposal plan (draft) sets the 23.49 square household units from the 1 management and disposal plan to the 23.49 square household units as withholding facilities, it seems that the above 3 households, which were initially set as withholding facilities, were actually omitted because they did not have any share of union members. ② In the authorized management and disposal plan on April 7, 2004, it appears that the above 13 households, which were set as withholding facilities, were additionally allocated to the 22.03 square household units at the 18th regular meeting of the applicants for the 1 management and disposal plan (draft), it is difficult to view that the difference between the 18th regular meeting and the 20th regular meeting of the applicants for the 2010th regular meeting.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the authorization disposition of this case is null and void is without merit.

(5) Whether the 2nd management and disposal plan is void as a matter of course

① First of all, the plaintiffs' assertion that the allocation of 40 square-type 88 households among the apartment of this case to the general unit was unlawful is without merit. According to the evidence No. 10, since 40 square-type 87 households can recognize the fact that they were sold to the members of the defendant association, the part of the allegation that only 66 households among the apartment of this case was sold to the members of the defendant association is without merit.

Next, we examine whether the plaintiff 1 has the right to purchase an apartment unit with 40 square meters or more, the plaintiff 2 and 30 square meters or more. The size of the housing unit to be sold should be the amount as of the base date of the management and disposal plan ( December 4, 2002). According to the evidence No. 10, 27 members of the association with 398 square meters or more among the members of the association with 421 rank, 430 square meters or more among the members of the association with 421 rank, the right to purchase an apartment unit with 30 square meters or more, 430 square meters or more, the right to purchase an apartment unit with 30 square meters or more (or 69,985,00 won of the right to purchase an apartment unit with 30 square meters or more, and the right to purchase an apartment unit with 30 square meters or more among the co-ownership right of the plaintiff 1 and 434 square meters or more is illegal.

② Meanwhile, since the contents of a management and disposal plan must undergo a resolution at the general meeting of partners and obtain authorization from the head of the Gu, etc. to coordinate conflicting interests among the interested partners and protect the rights and interests thereof, it is reasonable to deem that the contents of a management and disposal plan that has gone through a resolution at the general meeting of partners should be approved by going through a public inspection procedure at the general meeting of partners, unless it modifies minor errors that do not affect the rights and interests of the partners. However, even if the plaintiffs were determined as persons subject to liquidation but are changed as persons subject to sole sale, the profits and proportion of the defendant union arising therefrom would vary if they were changed as those of the persons subject to liquidation, which would inevitably affect the rights and interests of other partners, and the court rendered a decision that revokes the part of the first management and disposal plan, which would inevitably affect the rights and interests of the plaintiffs, is bound by the purport of the judgment, and it does not necessarily be deemed that the above decision had been resolved by the general meeting of partners, and thus, it is unlawful to deem that the defendant union changed the plaintiffs

However, in light of the fact that there is room for interpretation because there is no clear provision in the statutes as to whether the defendant union has decided to arbitrarily but rather according to the final judgment of the court, and if there is a court ruling ordering partial revocation of a management and disposal plan, it should again go through a resolution of the general meeting of union members pursuant to the purport of the judgment, and such defect is not serious, and thus, it does not constitute the degree of invalidity of the disposition itself. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the second management and disposal plan is void automatically on the ground of

(3) Furthermore, the fact that the Defendant Cooperative has already determined “the estimated value of the site or structure that is scheduled for parcelling-out by each subject of parcelling-out” in the management and disposal plan is as seen earlier. Since the fact that the Defendant Cooperative confirmed the apartment to be parcelling-out to the subject of parcelling-out pursuant to the management and disposal plan after the instant authorization disposition does not dispute between the parties, the part of the assertion that the Defendant Cooperative did not stipulate “the estimated value of the site or structure that is scheduled for parcelling-out by subject of parcelling-out” as to the whole members under the management and disposal plan that

In addition, unlike the management and disposition plan in the second management and disposition plan, although the plaintiffs were changed to the subject of sale to the subject of sale by unit, there was a dispute between the plaintiffs and the subject of sale by unit, and the plaintiffs appeared to have been classified as a withholding facility for convenience because they did not specify the subject of sale by unit lot and the subject of sale by unit lot, and they did not specify the subject of sale by unit lot, and the defendant union continuously expressed to the plaintiff 1 the intent to sell the unit of 31.06 type apartment buildings and 22.03 class apartment buildings to the plaintiff 2 and 3. Since there are a large number of interested parties and the parties concerned, it is inevitable to state the subject of sale by unit as the subject of sale by unit, and it is difficult to view that the application for the change of the management and disposition plan has no choice but to state a certain extent the subject of sale by unit as a withholding facility for the lawsuit.

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

④ Finally, the plaintiffs' assertion that the first management disposition plan excluded the plaintiff et al. from the withholding facility is without merit. Therefore, the above argument based on the premise is without merit without further review.

⑤ Ultimately, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the management disposition plan is void as a matter of course is without merit.

(6) Whether there exist defects in the transfer announcement itself of this case

① After the completion of the project implementation, the transfer announcement was an administrative disposition to transfer the ownership of the site, building, etc. created by the improvement project to the purchaser of the unit under the conditions as prescribed by the management and disposal plan. However, the plaintiff et al. had already been designated as the object of exclusive sale under the management and disposal plan, but it appears only to have been classified as a litigation postponement facility for convenience due to the lack of specification of the object of sale due to the continuous dispute over the parcelling-out type. From the time of the application for parcelling-out to the transfer announcement of this case, the plaintiff 1 et al., the plaintiff 2, and the plaintiff 3 had no right to purchase the apartment at 41.01, and the plaintiff 2, and the plaintiff 3 had no right to purchase the apartment at 31.06, the plaintiff 1 et al., and the plaintiff 2, and the plaintiff 3 had no right to purchase the apartment at 22.03, respectively. In light of the fact that the plaintiff et al. had not been aware of their opportunity to purchase the apartment at 3rd.

In addition, in case where the ownership of the site or building is transferred to a person who purchases the site or building in accordance with the public announcement of transfer, the ownership of the previous site or building shall be deemed to have been established in the site or building to which the ownership was transferred. Therefore, the defendant union does not seem to have any error of law in making the public announcement of the transfer of this case after specifying the object to the non-party 1, on the ground that the provisional seizure of the non-party 1's share

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

② Meanwhile, even if the Defendant Union did not pay the relocation expenses as alleged by the Plaintiffs, it is difficult to view that such reason affects the legality of the relocation public notice, apart from the existence of the claims for relocation expenses against the Defendant Union. In addition, Article 49(6) of the Do administration and disposal plan provides that when the approval of the management and disposal plan is publicly announced, the owners of the previous land or buildings, superficies, persons having a right to lease and a lessee, etc. shall not use or benefit from the previous land or buildings until the date the transfer public notice is given, it is reasonable to view that the right to use or benefit from the existing building belongs to the Defendant Union from the time the approval of the management and disposal plan is given. Therefore, it is legitimate to remove the previous and second buildings on September 1, 2004, which are after the approval of the first management and disposal plan was given (the cancellation of the transfer registration of the shares on the land of the Defendant Union on September 1, 2004).

Therefore, all of the above arguments are without merit.

③ Ultimately, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the transfer announcement of this case must be null and void or cancelled is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiffs' lawsuit against the defendant union seeking revocation or invalidity confirmation of the management disposition plan and the lawsuit against the head of Seongdong-gu Office of the plaintiffs' Seongdong-gu shall be dismissed, respectively. The plaintiffs' remaining main claim and conjunctive claim against the defendant union are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Sung-sung(Presiding Judge)(Presiding Judge)