The purpose of Article 28 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and the requirements for exclusion from the number of owners of land, etc. on the ground that the location of the land or building owner died before

Article 28(1)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24007, Jul. 31, 2012; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Act”) provides that the number of resident registration numbers at the time of registration as the owner is entered in the land registry, the certified copy of the building register, the land register, and the building management ledger shall be excluded from the number of owners of land, etc. The person whose address is not verified as the present address is not the one. This purport is to facilitate the progress of the project by excluding the owners of land or buildings for whom it is difficult to confirm the consent of the association establishment promotion committee or the association establishment establishment establishment approval in the housing reconstruction project. However, in light of the fact that the owner of land or building excluded from the number of owners of land, etc. solely on the ground that the location is not verified

In light of the purport, etc. of Article 28(1)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, in order to exclude the owners of land or buildings who already died from the number of owners of land, etc. on the ground that the whereabouts of the owners of land or buildings are not verified prior to the disposition of authorization to establish an association, such fact cannot be verified even though they made possible and sufficient efforts to confirm the existence and whereabouts of the successors of the owners of land or buildings, and there is no reason to view otherwise even if the resident registration number of the owners of land

Article 28 (1) 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24007, Jul. 31, 2012)

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Law Firm Dun & Yang, Attorneys Kim Young-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seo Law Firm, Attorney Park Sang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (Attorney Nam Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu30498 decided April 25, 2012

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal, including the part resulting from supplementary participation, are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 28(1)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24007, Jul. 31, 2012; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Act”) provides that the number of resident registration numbers at the time of registration as the owner is entered in the land registry, the certified copy of the building register, the land register, and the building management ledger shall be excluded from the number of owners of land, etc. The person whose address is not verified as the present address is not the one. This purport is to facilitate the progress of the project by excluding the owners of land or buildings whose intention is difficult to confirm as to whether the association establishment promotion committee or the association establishment establishment establishment approval, etc. is consented in the housing reconstruction project. However, in light of the fact that the owner of land or building excluded from the number of owners of land, etc. solely on the ground that the location

In light of the purport of Article 28(1)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, in order to exclude the owners of land or buildings who already died from the number of owners of land, etc. on the ground that the whereabouts of the owners of land or buildings are not confirmed prior to the disposition to establish an association, such fact may not be verified even if the successors of the above owners of land or buildings made full efforts to verify the existence and whereabouts of the owners of land or buildings, and there is no reason to view otherwise even if the resident registration number of the owners of land or buildings

In the same purport, the court below is just in taking measures excluding Nonparty 1, 2, and 3 whose location was not verified at the time of the disposition of approving the establishment of the association of this case, and Nonparty 4, 5, etc. who already died before the disposition of approving the establishment of the association of this case, from the number of owners of land, etc., and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In light of the fact that the State and local governments are granted various public authority and roles in relation to the implementation of rearrangement projects, and that the competent government and local governments are obliged to support rearrangement projects and to cooperate in the implementation of projects in order to realize public welfare, where a local government representing the relevant rearrangement project association owns land in the rearrangement zone, the relevant local government may be deemed to have consented to the establishment of the relevant rearrangement project association through the disposition of authorization to establish the association. Furthermore, if the State or local government which has the authority to designate rearrangement zones owns land in the relevant rearrangement zone, through consultation procedures, etc. during the process from the establishment of a master plan for rearrangement to the specific disposition of authorization to establish a rearrangement zone, if it did not explicitly express or oppose the relevant rearrangement project itself or the project implementation by the relevant rearrangement project association, the State or local governments shall be deemed to have consented to the establishment of the relevant rearrangement project association by the authorization of the competent government (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Du1419, Apr. 14, 2014).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that the owners of land, etc. in the instant rearrangement zone may be deemed to have consented to the establishment of the Intervenor joining the Defendant, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

Based on its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that four persons, including Nonparty 6, 7, 8, and 9, exceeded the bounds of the delegated legislation under Article 28(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the Withdrawal of Consent to establish an association by the owners of land, etc., or were null and void due to the violation of the principle of equality, and lawfully withdrawn consent, and that the said four persons should

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity of Article 28(4) of

4. Regarding ground of appeal No. 4

Where lots of land, owners of land or buildings, and co-owners are different, one person for each real estate shall be calculated as owners of land, etc., and where the same co-owner jointly owns different parcels of land, land, or building, only one of the co-owners shall be calculated as owners of land, etc. regardless of the number of real estate (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du15852, Jan. 14, 2010).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below in light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that the court below did not err in the calculation of the number of consenters as to the sole owner or the non-party 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, including the part resulting from participation in the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)