Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

The head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Hong Dong-dong Housing Reconstruction and Maintenance Project Association (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Park Jong-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

April 17, 2012

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap25749 decided July 22, 2011

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. The plaintiff (Appointed)'s primary claim is dismissed.

B. On June 4, 2010, the Defendant revoked the authorization of the establishment of the Hong Dong-dong Housing Reconstruction Project Association.

2. The 1/2 of the total cost of the lawsuit, including the cost of participation, shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Intervenor’s Intervenor, and the 1/2 of the cost shall be borne by the Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor.

1. Purport of claim

In the first place, the defendant confirmed that the establishment approval disposition of the Hong Dong-dong Housing Reconstruction Project Association was invalid on June 4, 2010.

Preliminaryly, the defendant's disposition to authorize the establishment of the Hong Dong-dong Housing Reconstruction Project Association on June 4, 2010 is revoked.

[In the first instance court, it sought a confirmation or revocation of the above establishment approval disposition, and then, in the first instance court, the revocation was changed to the preliminary claim, which is the primary claim)

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. All the claims of the plaintiff (appointed party) shall be dismissed.

Ⅰ. Authorization to establish association;

The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as follows: Gap evidence 1 through 3, 18, 20, 21, 32, 33, Eul evidence 1, 11, 43, 45 through 47 (including paper numbers), Gap evidence 8-1, 2, 12-5 through 8, and 17-5.

[1]

On March 23, 2006, the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government established and publicly announced a master plan for urban and residential environment improvement, which includes the designation of the area to be rearranged (number 1 omitted) of the Dong-dong (number 1 omitted) and 17,012.9 square meters as the area to be rearranged.

After that, on August 23, 2007, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City changed the area of the zone to be rearranged to 17,012.9 square meters from the said 17,012.9 square meters of the Seoul Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Notice No. 2007-282 on August 23, 2007 to 34,497.7 square meters added 68 square meters, the Mayor changed the basic plan for urban and residential environment improvement.

[2]

○ On January 15, 2008, the Defendant issued the approval of the reconstruction project association establishment promotion committee (hereinafter “promotion committee”) whose business area covers 1-dong (number 3 omitted) Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu (hereinafter “Seoul”) (hereinafter “approval disposition of promotion committee”).

After that, on May 21, 2009, the Mayor of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”) designated the Seoul Western-dong (number 1 omitted) 34,817 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant rearrangement zone”) as the rearrangement zone pursuant to Article 4(1)1 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”).

○ The rearrangement zone in this case consists of the number of owners or areas which are not a housing complex.

[3]

In the case of the designation of the rearrangement zone in this case and the approval of the promotion committee of the defendant, the revocation suit was not filed within the filing period.

○ Meanwhile, a lawsuit filed to invalidate the Defendant’s approval of the Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap4445, but the claim was dismissed on August 13, 2010. The plaintiffs appealed Seoul High Court 2010Nu2902, but the appeal was dismissed on August 19, 201, but the judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[4]

○○ Promotion Committee held an inaugural general meeting on February 7, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “first inaugural general meeting”) and applied for authorization to establish a housing reconstruction improvement project association (hereinafter referred to as “renovation project association”) to the Defendant on February 23, 2010, but the Defendant returned the said application on April 2, 2010 on the ground of insufficient consent rate.

○ Accordingly, on April 20, 2010, a promotion committee held an inaugural general meeting (hereinafter referred to as “second inaugural general meeting”) and applied again for authorization to establish a reconstruction association to the Defendant on April 22, 2010, but the Defendant returned the said application on May 17, 2010 on the ground of insufficient consent rate.

○ On May 30, 2010, the promotion committee again held an inaugural general meeting (hereinafter “third inaugural general meeting”) and re-decided the agenda items of the first and second inaugural general meeting in a lump sum. On May 31, 2010, the committee applied for authorization for the establishment of the reconstruction association to the Defendant on May 31, 2010, attaching written consent to the establishment of the reconstruction association by landowners or building owners in the instant rearrangement zone (hereinafter “instant consent”).

○ The Defendant recognized on June 4, 2010, 17 landowners, 14 building owners, 280 housing and 249 landowners, and approved the establishment of the Intervenor Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Union”) (hereinafter “instant authorization”) on June 4, 2010 (hereinafter “instant authorization”).

[5]

○ Following that, on March 2011, the Intervenor Association filed an application for authorization to change the establishment of a reconstruction association with the Defendant on the grounds that three owners of land, etc. additionally submit three written consents and change of the ownership of the association members, and obtained the authorization to change the establishment of the reconstruction association from the Defendant on March 29, 201 (hereinafter “the first authorization to change”).

○ Also, the Intervenor Association filed an application for authorization to change the establishment of a reconstruction association with the Defendant on June 20, 201, on the ground that it submitted one written consent of the owners of land, etc. and the change of the names of its members.

○ Intervenor Association filed an application for authorization to change the establishment of a reconstruction association with the Defendant on July 7, 201, on the ground that two owners of land, etc. submitted additional written consent, and obtained the authorization to change the establishment of the reconstruction association from the Defendant on July 7, 201.

Ⅱ. Defect in the establishment authorization of this case

On the ground that there is a defect in the establishment authorization of this case, the Plaintiff (Appointeds, hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs”), the Intervenor (Appointeds, Appointeds, and 2 and 3 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Plaintiffs, etc.”) seeking confirmation of invalidity of the establishment authorization of this case and seeking preliminary revocation of the establishment authorization of this case. First, we examine whether there is a defect.

1. Whether the designation of the rearrangement zone in this case is defective

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Of the buildings in the improvement zone of this case, the ratio of buildings falling under buildings, the removal of which is inevitable due to functions and structural defects, is lower than the ratio of old age or total floor area, and in fact, old age is lower than the ratio based on old age or total floor area, there was no on-site investigation or on-site investigation for the determination of old age or inferior buildings, and failing to meet the requirements for

Nevertheless, there are significant defects in the designation of the rearrangement zone in this case by the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City who designated the rearrangement zone as the rearrangement zone under the Urban Improvement Act, and the above defects are succeeded to the authorization for the establishment of this case

B. Determination

(1) First, we examine whether there was a defect in the process of determining old and inferior buildings.

(A) According to Article 4(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, which was applied at the time of the designation of the rearrangement zone in this case as of May 21, 2009 by the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the head of a Si/Gun shall establish a rearrangement plan for an area that meets the requirements prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as the concentration of old and inferior buildings within the scope consistent with the basic plan, and hold a residents explanatory meeting and make it available for public inspection for 30 days or more, and hear the opinions of the local councils, and then require the Mayor/Do governor to apply for the designation of the rearrangement zone along with it. According to Article 10(1)3(b)(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, where an existing detached house is to be reconstructed under Article 10(1)3(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Buildings, and where the area of old and inferior buildings is at least 2/3

Meanwhile, Article 2 subparag. 3(c) of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Environments (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Ordinance”) defines buildings, the removal of which is inevitable due to the impediments to urban landscape, functional defects of buildings, structural defects due to defective construction or deterioration, as prescribed by the Municipal Ordinance of City/Do, as “definite or inferior buildings,” and Article 2(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Environments (hereinafter “City/Do Ordinance”) defines buildings for which 20 years (where municipal ordinances of City/Do provide for more than 20 years, 20 years) have passed after completion as “buildings prescribed by the Presidential Decree”, and Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Environments (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Ordinance”) applied at that time, Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Environments (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Ordinance”), and Article 2(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Ordinance”) provides for the term of 30 years other than the term.

(B) As seen above, since the concept of old and inferior buildings stipulated in Article 2 subparag. 3 (c) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas is abstract concepts, it is necessary to establish objective and clear criteria for exercising appropriate discretion in determining whether to designate an improvement zone. The purpose of Article 2(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the 20-year long-term infrastructure is to ensure that a certain period of time can be useful and appropriate criteria for determining whether the old and inferior buildings constitute old and inferior buildings. The above provision provides that the local government has the authority to determine old and inferior buildings through training in consideration of the residential environment, such as the situation of the use of the land and buildings in the relevant region, the status of the installation of fundamental infrastructure, traffic conditions in the improvement zone and surrounding area, etc., the criteria for determining old and inferior buildings as stipulated in Article 2(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the 200-year long-term infrastructure shall be interpreted as follows.

(C) On the other hand, related statutes do not explicitly stipulate the criteria or procedures for determining the abstract concept of old and inferior buildings as stipulated in Article 2 subparag. 3 (c) of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, except for the delegation of municipal ordinances to City/Do according to the criteria under each subparagraph of Article 2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions. On the other hand, it is reasonable to view that there is considerable discretion to determine whether the removal is an inevitable old and inferior building within the area of judgment by experts in technical and legal aspects, and thus, it is within the area of judgment by the relevant experts.

(D) However, according to Article 3(1)2 of the Urban Improvement Ordinance, the term of “a building for which 20 years have passed” under Article 2(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act is subdivided and specifically prescribed depending on whether the building is an apartment house, the time of completion, the number of floors and structures of the building, and the life thereof. The provision of the Urban Improvement Ordinance appears to have established objective and clear standards as it appears that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council exercised its discretionary authority within the scope of delegation granted by the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act. In light of the public records such as the land cadastre, building ledger, and registry, the Defendant determined whether the building constitutes an old and inferior building which may be inevitably removed according to the standards such as whether the Urban Improvement Ordinance is a multi-family house, the time of completion, the number of floors and structures of the building, and the life thereof, it is difficult to accept the improvement project itself if it is deemed that the building is an inevitable building by an administrative agency separately from the specific standard of the Urban Improvement Ordinance, but it is difficult to understand that the building does not have been removed or 1).

However, in addition to the evidence No. 20, considering the purport of the entire pleading, the fact that the defendant's investigation of a building in the rearrangement zone of this case based on the entry entered in the public record reveals that the building with the maximum period of time under the Urban Improvement Ordinance exceeds 70% can be acknowledged.

(E) Therefore, the Defendant did not verify whether the buildings in the instant improvement zone were old or inferior after individual inspection, and there is any defect in calculating old or inferior buildings according to the standards and procedures prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act, such as the number of years elapsed after the completion of the construction in the public register, and the Ordinance on Urban Improvement.

(2) Next, we examine whether the total floor space should be considered in determining whether a building constitutes an old or inferior building.

The total floor area is not included in the criteria under Article 10 (1) and subparagraph 3 (b) (ii) of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Housing Rebuilding Projects, and it is difficult to find a reasonable reason to determine whether it falls under an old and inferior building based on the total floor area. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion about this cannot be accepted.

(3) Furthermore, we examine whether the failure to conduct safety diagnosis constitutes a defect.

According to Article 12(10)9 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, which was implemented at the time of the designation of the rearrangement zone, and Article 20(1)3(b)(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, safety diagnosis for a reconstruction project is limited to multi-family housing, and where old and inferior buildings are at least 2/3 of the number of buildings in the relevant area, safety diagnosis for the remaining buildings may be omitted. Thus, even if safety diagnosis is not conducted, it is difficult to deem that there is a defect in the designation of the rearrangement zone in this case.

(4) In full view of the foregoing, it cannot be deemed that there was a defect alleged by the Plaintiff, etc. in the designation of the rearrangement zone in this case by the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and therefore, it is without merit to examine how the defect in the pre-disposition affects the validity of

2. Whether the defendant's approval disposition of the promotion committee is defective

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant’s approval was made before designating the rearrangement zone, and the person who intends to obtain consent from the owners of land, etc. to establish the △△△ Committee did not explain and notify the committee in violation of Article 3(4)1 of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 21-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and did not disclose the operation of the committee in violation of Article 24(12) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

The above defects constitute defects in the defendant's approval disposition of the promotion committee, and the approval of the defective defendant's promotion committee is related to the prior and subsequent dispositions between the defendant's approval of the establishment of the promotion committee and the defendant's approval of the establishment of the promotion committee of this case.

B. Determination

The defendant's promotion committee approval, which is a prior disposition, did not file a revocation lawsuit within the filing period, and the fact that the judgment dismissing the claim has become final and conclusive in the lawsuit seeking nullification of the approval disposition of the promotion committee filed against the defendant. Thus, even if there is any defect claimed by the plaintiff in the defendant's promotion committee approval, the plaintiff et al. can no longer assert such defect. Thus, the above assertion by the plaintiff et al. is

3. Defects in the procedures for convening the inaugural general meeting of the intervenor association;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

At the time of the inaugural general meeting for the establishment of an intervenor association, the intervenor did not give consent to the establishment of the association, or did not give consent to the land or building owners in the rearrangement zone of this case.

Therefore, there are significant defects in the third inaugural general meeting on May 30, 2010 without following the above procedure, and such defects are also succeeded to the establishment authorization of this case by the defendant.

B. Determination

(1) According to Article 22-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act, a promotion committee shall hold an inaugural general meeting for establishing an association after obtaining consent from the owners of land, etc., and before applying for authorization to establish an association (Paragraph (1)), and shall disclose the purpose, agenda item, date, time, place, capacity for reference, and matters equipped on the Internet website by 14 days before the inaugural general meeting is held, and send and notify the owners of land, etc. by registered mail (Paragraph (2)). A general meeting of incorporation shall confirm the articles of association, appoint partnership officers, appoint representatives, appoint representatives and other necessary matters, which are notified in advance pursuant to Paragraph (2) (Paragraph (4). The decision-making at the inaugural general meeting shall be made with the attendance of a majority of the owners of land, etc. (limited to the owners of land, etc. who consent to establish an association in the case of a

Comprehensively taking account of the above provisions, a promotion committee shall perform duties necessary for establishing and operating an association by attending a majority of the owners of lands, etc. who agree to establish an association in the case of a housing reconstruction project on the premise that written consent of the owners of lands, etc. required by the Urban Improvement Act has been prepared,

(2) Therefore, a promotion committee is obligated to disclose the matters set forth in paragraph (2) of the above Article, such as the purpose, agenda, date, time, place, eligibility for attendance, and meeting, on the Internet homepage, and to send and notify the same by registered mail to the owners of land, etc. who have consented to the establishment of the association, but it cannot be deemed that the owners of land, etc. who did not consent to the establishment of the association or withdrawn consent, or did not make a decision on consent until the time of the above general meeting should not send and notify the matters set forth in paragraph (2)

(3) If so, even if the promotion committee did not consent to the establishment of the association, or did not notify the owners of land, etc. who did not consent to the establishment of the association, including the plaintiff, it cannot be said that there is any defect in holding and resolution of the inaugural general meeting, and the above assertion by

4. Non-permanent defects in the construction obligation of small houses;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In accordance with the Urban Improvement Act amended by Act No. 9632, Apr. 22, 2009, the former “Obligation to construct rental housing for housing reconstruction projects” (Article 30-2) was abolished, and at the same time, the “systems for relaxing the floor area ratio of housing reconstruction projects and constructing small houses” (Article 30-3) was newly established.

Nevertheless, without reflecting Article 30-3 of the Urban Improvement Act on the relaxation of the floor area ratio of the housing reconstruction project and the construction system of small houses, the participant association obtained the approval of the establishment of the rental housing construction system from the owner of the land, etc. with the consent of the approval of the establishment of the association. On February 16, 2011, the participant association started to implement the basic plan and the modification of the rearrangement zone for the construction of small apartment units that must be located in around February 16, 201.

This is a significant defect in the participant union's deceptions the owners of land for the purpose of this case's establishment authorization, and consent to establish an association of the owners of land, etc. or the establishment authorization of this case.

B. Determination

(1) In accordance with the Urban Improvement Act amended by Act No. 9632, Apr. 22, 2009, the former “Obligation to construct rental housing for housing reconstruction projects” (Article 30-2) was abolished, and at the same time, the “systems for relaxing the floor area ratio of housing reconstruction projects and for constructing small houses” (Article 30-3) was newly established.

(2) However, while the construction of rental housing in the previous housing reconstruction project was mandatory, the newly established housing reconstruction project's floor area ratio relaxation and construction of small houses can be constructed without being subject to the restriction on the floor area ratio (Article 30-3 (1) 1 of the Urban Planning and Utilization Act) or the permissible number (Article 30-3 (1) 1 of the Urban Planning and Utilization Act) prescribed by the Ordinance of a Metropolitan City/Gun after deliberation by the local urban planning committee, notwithstanding the floor area ratio prescribed by the improvement plan, if the project implementer implements the housing reconstruction project in the over-concentration control region in the Seoul Metropolitan area, the project implementer shall be obliged to construct small houses with an exclusive residential area ratio of 60 square meters or less (Article 30-3 (1) 1 of the Urban Planning and Utilization Act) and to the upper limit of the floor area ratio under Article 78 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and related Acts (Article 1). In this case, the project implementer shall have prior consultation with the approval of the project implementation plan (Article 5 (2).

(3) According to the above, the person who selects and uses the “building project’s floor area ratio relaxation and small housing construction” system after authorization was granted to establish the association is the “project implementer” designated after authorization was granted, and the implementor of the reconstruction project shall accept the floor area ratio limitation under the △△△△ National Land Planning and Utilization Act or the maintenance plan after authorization was granted to establish the association, and implement the reconstruction project within the scope of the restriction, and the plan will be selected from among the measures to increase the floor area ratio up to the upper limit of the legal floor area ratio under Article 30-3 of the △△△△△△△ Urban Improvement Act and to bear the obligation to construct the small housing instead of raising the profitability. Thus, it is the discretionary element of the implementor of the reconstruction project.

(4) In addition, since the former Act and subordinate statutes governing the construction obligation of rental housing for the housing reconstruction project were repealed, the construction plan per se reflected in the project plan by the promotion committee does not become null and void as a matter of course, and only the promotion committee can withdraw the construction plan of rental housing or modify it by other means by gathering the opinions of the owners

(5) In full view of the above, even if the committee was likely to use the above system by introducing the above amendment of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Small Houses, it cannot be said that there is any defect on the ground that the committee did not enter the above system in the written consent on establishing the association, or the defendant did not include the “building volume ratio mitigation of the housing reconstruction project and the “small-sized housing construction” system,” and therefore, the above assertion by the plaintiff et al. is without merit.

5. Whether the legal consent rate for the establishment of an intervenor's association is satisfied;

A. Whether the written consent of this case lacks the specification

(1) Plaintiff et al.’s assertion

The instant written consent did not state the floor area ratio, building-to-land ratio, underground floor area, the size and size of commercial buildings, the total floor area of underground floors, and the size of sales volume for exclusive ownership.

Matters concerning the burden of expenses to be determined when demanding the consent for the establishment of an association shall be determined so that the owner of a plot of land, etc. may sufficiently estimate the expenses to be borne when the owner of a plot of land, etc. participates in reconstruction at the stage of the implementation of the project, but the consent of this case does not specify the matters concerning the burden of expenses to be borne.

Matters concerning the reversion of ownership are not included in the written consent of this case.

Therefore, the consent of this case is not concrete, and it constitutes a defect in the consent of the establishment of the association or the authorization of this case.

(2) Determination

(A) After the rearrangement plan becomes final and conclusive, the contents of the housing reconstruction project are specifically determined by the committee’s approval, association approval, project implementation plan, approval, and management and disposal plan. It cannot be expected that the scale and contents of the project will be determined to the extent corresponding to the contents to be determined only after going through various procedures in the future at the time the written consent for approving the establishment of the association is draft, and the ownership of a new building should be determined within the extent anticipated at the stage of draft of written consent.

(B) Article 26(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act provides that the consent of the owner of a plot of land, etc. under Article 16(1) through (3) of the Urban Improvement Act shall be obtained in a manner that obtains consent from the written consent prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and Article 7(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Improvement Act provides that the Promotion Committee of the Urban Improvement Act intends to obtain authorization to establish an association under Article 16(1) through (3) of the Urban Improvement Act shall be in accordance with the attached Form of the said Enforcement Rule.

However, according to the evidence No. 4, the written consent of this case is used in the attached Form No. 4-3 of the above Enforcement Rule, and it can be recognized that the estimated amount of expenses for the design outline of the new building, the removal of the building, and the construction of the new building is specified specifically. In particular, the written consent of this case includes the following: “The expenses are imposed and collected according to the articles of association, the expenses are collected at the time of the management and disposal, the liquidation is finalized, the liquidation amount is finally determined at the time of the liquidation of the association, the value of the assets owned by the association is calculated as prescribed by the articles of association of the association, and the expenses are to be borne at the rate calculated according to the rate.” The written consent of this case includes the method of calculating the shares of each person subject to parcelling-out and the method of calculating the shares of the association and the method of calculating the order

(C) Meanwhile, the articles of incorporation of the Intervenor Union also is subject to the consent of the instant written consent. According to the evidence No. 5, the Intervenor Union’s articles of incorporation established the following facts: (a) the price of the site and building sold in lots, the appraisal method of the price of the previous land and building, and the timing and method for paying liquidation money, etc.

(D) In addition, as the time for selecting the Si △△ Project under the △△ City Improvement Act has been stipulated after the authorization was granted, it was practically impossible for the association to determine the specific cost burden to the same extent as that of the previous house reconstruction before the authorization was granted due to the lack of information. The amount of expenses to be specifically apportioned to each △△ member after the authorization was finally determined by the management and disposal plan after the authorization was granted for the establishment of the association and the approval of the project implementation plan. Therefore, if a consent is required from the owners of land and buildings at the pre-approval stage of the establishment, it would be inevitable to enter the matters concerning the cost burden to the extent that the details can be embodied as a result of the future reconstruction project, and accordingly, if detailed matters are determined according to the degree of the progress of the △△△ project, it may escape from the risk of excessive cost sharing through the maintenance of the status of association members or the decision-making of cash liquidation, etc. Accordingly, it is difficult to deem that the owner of land, etc. immediately suffer damage or risk of damage.

(E) In full view of the above, even if the written consent of this case contains somewhat abstract and abstract descriptions of the criteria for allocation of project costs, outline of the project, ownership attribution, etc. to be borne by a partner, it seems that the owners of land, etc. within the rearrangement zone of this case can reasonably estimate the degree of expenses to be borne by themselves or the direction of progress of the project in the future, if they agree to establish an association based on the outline of design of new buildings, estimated cost of removal of buildings and new construction, the association articles on the burden of expenses to be borne by a partner, etc.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the content of the written consent of this case is not specifically specified in the allocation standard of business expenses to be borne by members in the future, outline of business, ownership, etc. Therefore, the above assertion by the plaintiff et al.

(b) Whether defects exist in the draft consent prior to the designation of an improvement zone;

(1) Plaintiff et al.’s assertion

The consent of this case was drafted before the designation of the rearrangement zone.

(2) Determination

The written consent of this case can be recognized as being drafted after May 21, 2009, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 15, 19, 26, 33, and 39 of this case. Thus, the above assertion by the plaintiff et al. is without merit.

C. Whether to explain the method of withdrawing the articles of association or consent at the time of demanding the consent letter of this case

(1) Plaintiff et al.’s assertion

The consent of this case was drafted without an explanation of the articles of association or the method of withdrawing consent of the intervenor association, which constitutes a defect in the consent to establish an association or the authorization of this case.

(2) Determination

(A) Since the subject of consent under the instant written consent includes the association’s articles of association, the owners of land, etc. who expressed their intent to consent under the instant written consent can be presumed to have recognized the contents of the association’s articles of association and agreed to it, and there is no evidence to reverse this.

(B) The revocation of consent to establish an association under Article 24(1)8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the owners of lands, etc. who have consented to the establishment of the association. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the items in Article 12 subparag. 5 through 8 of the evidence No. 12 and Article 21-2 of the evidence No. 21, the △△△ Committee response to the question of the owners of lands, etc. by sending a public notice in the name of the chairperson of the promotion committee. The chairperson of the △△△ Committee may present a written resolution to the owners of lands, etc. on May 19, 2010 and each inaugural general meeting on April 20, 2010 to the effect that “the defendant returned the application for approval to establish an association due to a lack of consent rate, and thus, the inaugural general meeting held on May 30, 2010 to re-determine the agenda resolved at each of the above inaugural general meeting.”

According to the above facts, the promotion committee announced that owners of land, etc. who agreed to establish the association in the rearrangement zone of this case may object to the agenda of the inaugural general meeting (including the withdrawal of consent) as well as the date and time, agenda, etc. of the inaugural general meeting.

(C) If so, at the time of demanding the consent letter of this case, the owner of the land, etc. knew of the contents of the association's articles of association, prepared the consent letter of this case to the promotion committee, and the promotion committee fulfilled its duty to inform the landowner, etc. who consented to the establishment of the association of the method of withdrawing consent

(d) Whether the voting right to the under-land is distorted;

(1) Plaintiff et al.’s assertion

Although 11 voting rights cannot be evaluated as equal to the voting rights value of other land, the intervenor association assessed the under-land equally with other land, so there is a significant defect in calculating the consent rate for the establishment of the intervenor association.

(2) Determination

Article 17(18) of the Act on the Method of Calculating the Number of Consenters of Land, etc., and Article 28(19) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act do not stipulate that the value of voting rights shall be assessed differently depending on the area of land. On the other hand, Article 16(20) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the Establishment of Association stipulates a separate consent requirement with regard to the consent of the owners of land, etc. necessary for authorization for the establishment of an association by converting the number of the owners of land, etc. and the number of the land area into the number of the owners of land, thereby

(e) Whether the area requirement of consent is increased;

(1) Plaintiff et al.’s assertion

Considering the characteristics of the rearrangement zone in this case, the consent area requirement should be 3/4 of the size of land, such as the consent number requirement. Since the size of land is below that of the owners who agreed to establish the intervenor association, there is a significant defect in calculating the consent ratio on the establishment of the intervenor association.

(2) Determination

(A) Article 16(2) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that the requirements for consent for the establishment of a housing reconstruction association shall be removed. In the case of multi-family housing within a housing complex, at least 2/3 of sectional owners for each building, at least 1/2 of land size, at least 3/4 of all sectional owners within a housing complex, and at least 3/4 of land size shall obtain consent from landowners who own at least 3/4 of land size (Article 16(2)). On the other hand, where an area which is not a housing complex is included in a rearrangement zone, the Act provides that the consent shall be obtained from owners of land or buildings within an area which is not a housing complex, at least 3/4 of land size and at least 2/3 of land size and landowners

(B) In light of the purport of the rebuilding resolution and the consent system for the establishment of an association and the legislative intent that discriminates against the consent requirement between areas other than a housing complex, the above majority requirement under the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents shall be a mandatory provision, and it shall not be mitigated or aggravated by regulations or other agreements.

(C) As seen earlier, the rearrangement zone in this case consists mainly of non-housing areas. The requirements for consent of owners of land, etc. in the area which is not a housing complex in the rearrangement zone in this case are consent of at least 3/4 of the owners of land or buildings and owners of at least 2/3 of the area of land, and it cannot be modified on the ground that there are special circumstances asserted by the plaintiff, etc.

(f) Whether the number of consenters is overlapped or omitted;

(a) one person owns a lot of land or buildings;

(A) According to Article 28(1)2 Item (b) Item (b) Item (b) Item (i) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, if one person owns more than one ownership or sectional ownership, it shall be calculated as one owner regardless of the number of ownership or sectional ownership rights. This is also applicable to co-owners holding sectional ownership. According to Article 28(1) Item (a) of the same Act, when the ownership or sectional ownership belongs to several co-owners, one person representing such persons shall be calculated as the owner of land, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du15852, Jan. 14, 2010).

(B) The red-dong (number 4 omitted) and its ground buildings in Seodaemun-gu Seoul and the owners (number 5 omitted) of the same (number 35 No. 193, 1010).

According to Gap evidence Nos. 43 and Eul evidence Nos. 35, 43 and 35, the Hongdong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul (Seomun-dong 4 omitted) (hereinafter referred to as "Seoul Seomun-dong 4 omitted"), except for the "Seodae-dong 4 omitted" in the case of lot number, and the buildings and the buildings on its ground are owned by non-party 2 and 3 at the time of the establishment authorization of this case, but only the representative members are different. The defendant, however, judged Hongdong 4 omitted and the above ground buildings and the Hongdong 5 omitted as separate owners, and recognized each fact that two land or building owners have agreed to establish the association.

If so, Hong-dong (Land Number 4 omitted) and its ground buildings, and Hong-dong (Land Number 5 omitted), Nonparty 2 and 3 should be calculated as one landowner or one building owner. Thus, the Defendant should exclude one person from the number of the owners and consenters of the land or buildings calculated at the time of the authorization of the establishment of the instant case.

(C) The red-dong (number 6 omitted) and the ground buildings, the red-dong (number 7 omitted), the Dong (number 8 omitted), the (number 9 omitted), the (number 9 omitted), and the owner (number 10 omitted) (No. 35 No. 13, 1001)

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 35, the defendant is recognized to have been calculated as one land owner and one building owner, and the non-party 4, the owner of the Hong-dong (number 6 omitted), (number 7 omitted), (number 8 omitted), (number 9 omitted), and (number 10 omitted) the non-party 4, the landowner of the land, who is the land owner, separately calculated as one landowner, and treated as one non-party 1.

Thus, the owner of each of the above lands or above ground buildings shall be calculated as the number of non-party 4. Thus, one of the owners of the lands or buildings calculated at the time of the authorization of the establishment of this case must be excluded.

(2) Where several persons own land or buildings;

(A) According to the method of calculating the consent rate under Article 28(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, where several persons jointly own a parcel of land, one person representing co-owners shall be calculated as the owner of a plot of land, etc. (Article 28(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions as the owner of a plot of land, and where several persons jointly own a lot of land, if several co-owners are identical and the same person is appointed as the co-owners, such one person shall be calculated as the owner of a plot of land, as in the case of owning a lot of land. However, where the lot of land or the owner of the land and the co-owners are different, one person shall be calculated as the owner of a plot of land,

(B) The red-dong (number 11 omitted) and the owner of the above ground buildings (number 35 No. 208, 209)

1) According to the evidence Nos. 9 and 35 of the evidence Nos. 9 and 35, △△dong (number 11 omitted) and its ground buildings were owned by Nonparty 5, 6, 7, and 8 at the time of the establishment authorization of the instant case. Of the above co-owners, the Defendant recognized the fact that Nonparty 5, and 6 among the above co-owners, Nonparty 7, and 8 collectively considered two persons as one landowner and building owner, and that the land and building owner agreed to the establishment authorization of the association.

If so, even if Nonparty 5, 6, 7, and 8 shared a building (number 11 omitted) and its ground, the above four shall be calculated by adding it to one land and building owner.

2) To this end, the Intervenor’s association asserts that (number 11 omitted) and its ground buildings should be calculated as the owner of each land, etc., inasmuch as they are cooperative houses under Article 3(1) of the Addenda to the Ordinance on Urban Improvement, the divided number of households should be calculated as the number of households. However, the above provision merely purports that a cooperative house has the right to apply for parcelling-out by a separate household for parcelling-out, and it does not recognize the qualification of the owner of land, etc. by a separate household (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du4377, Mar.

3) Therefore, the Defendant should exclude two persons from the number of landowners and building owners calculated at the time of authorization for the establishment of the instant case and the number of consenters.

(C) Hong-dong (number 12 omitted), (number 13 omitted), ground (number 1 omitted), (number 2 omitted), (number 2 omitted) (number 35 No. 2001, 2002)

According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 14 (including paper numbers) and Eul evidence Nos. 35, red (number 12 omitted), (number 13 omitted), (number 1 omitted), and (number 2 omitted) were owned by each non-party 9, 10, and 11 at the time of the establishment authorization of this case. It is recognized that the defendant recognized the owners of the above (number 1 omitted) and (number 2 omitted) as the owners of the land or buildings, and treated them as two owners of the land or buildings.

Thus, the non-party 9, 10, and 11 of the above (No. 1 omitted), co-owners of the above (No. 2 omitted) should be calculated as one owner of the land or building. Thus, the defendant should exclude one person from the number of owners of the land or building calculated at the time of the authorization of the establishment of this case.

(c) Calculation of the number of consenterss to land or buildings in the name of the State agency: Hong-dong (number 14 omitted), (number 15 omitted), and building owners on each ground (number 35 No. 247, 248).

(A) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in Eul evidence Nos. 35 and 43, red dong (number 14 omitted) and ground buildings are the Supreme Court of Korea by management agency, red dong (number 15 omitted) and ground buildings are the Ministry of Strategy and Finance by management agency, and the defendant can recognize that the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Strategy and Finance are included in the number of consenters as separately landowners and building owners.

(B) However, there was no clear provision regarding the standard for calculating the number of owners of lands, etc. on state-owned and public land at the time of the establishment authorization of △△△, and only Article 28(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions (amended by Act No. 2277 of July 15, 2010) provides that “in respect of state-owned and public land, the property management authority shall be calculated as the owner of the land, etc.,” and the State 22) did not provide any supplementary provision that is retroactively retroactive from the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, which is amended by Act No. 2277 of July

(C) Therefore, at the time of the request for the consent of this case, the management agency of the state-owned land at the time of the request for the consent of this case, which was prior to the enforcement of the above amendment, is merely to take charge of the management of the state-owned property, and its ownership is limited to the State. Therefore, in calculating the owners of land or buildings under the Urban Improvement Act, even if the State owns several parcels of land within the rearrangement zone, it shall not be deemed the owner of the individual management agency, and only

(D) The plaintiff et al. asserts that even if it is the state, it cannot be viewed as the consenters unless it satisfies the external requirements of consent by the method of Article 17 of the Urban Improvement Act.

In the case of △△, △△, or local government, it cannot be deemed that the written consent form based on the seal imprint affixed with the certificate of seal imprint under Article 17(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas is required as it is. Thus, it would be sufficient to indicate consent in a reasonable way objectively verifiable. Article 66(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions of △△△△, provides that the State-owned or public property in the rearrangement zone may not be sold or transferred for purposes other than the rearrangement project. Paragraph (4) of the same Article provides that the State-owned or public property in the rearrangement zone may be sold or leased by free contract to the project implementer, occupant, or user, notwithstanding the state-owned or public property management plan under Article 9 of the State Property Act or Article 77 of the Local Finance Act and the method of contract under Article 43 of the State Property Act and Article 61 of the Local Finance Act, and that the State-owned or public property in the rearrangement zone did not express the intent of opposing the establishment of the State-owned.

(E) If so, the Defendant’s establishment of the instant land should be excluded from the number and number of consenters (number 14 omitted), (number 15 omitted), and each of the above ground buildings.

(d) Where the owners of land or buildings and co-owners are different: Hong-dong (number 16 omitted), Hong-dong (number 13 omitted), Hong-dong (number 13 omitted), and ground buildings (number 35 No. 158 per annum).

(A) According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 35, the defendant recognized the fact that Hong dong (number 16 omitted) owner Nonparty 12 and Hong dong (number 13 omitted) and the non-party 12 and 13 to the co-owner of the building on the ground as one landowner or building owner and treated them as one consenters.

(B) However, if the owners of land or buildings and co-owners are different, one person for each real estate should be calculated as the owners of land or buildings (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du15852, Jan. 14, 2010). Therefore, red (number 16 omitted), red (number 13 omitted), and red (number 13 omitted), and ground buildings should be deemed separate owners of land or buildings.

(C) Therefore, one person must be added to the number of the owners and the number of consenters calculated at the time of the authorization of the establishment of the instant case.

(5) Other determination on the plaintiff's assertion of overlapping calculation

(A) The plaintiff et al. asserts that there is no Seoul Special Metropolitan City-owned building located in Hongdong (number 17 omitted).

According to the statement No. 35, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City owns land, such as red (number 18 omitted) in addition to the above building in the improvement zone in this case, and the defendant can recognize the fact that all real estate owned by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City is treated as the consent of the owner of one land or building. Thus, even if the plaintiff's assertion is acknowledged, it cannot be deemed that the consent person is double calculated.

(B) In addition, the plaintiff et al. asserts that the non-party 14 and the non-party 15, who is the owner of Hongdong (number 19 omitted), and (number 20 omitted), who is the non-party 14 and the non-party 15, who is the co-owner of Hongdong (number 21 omitted), should be considered as one land or building owner in consideration of the non-party 14 and the non-party

As the above real estate differs in the form of ownership by the plaintiff et al., the above real estate shall be deemed as two separate owners of land or buildings. Therefore, it is legitimate for the defendant to calculate two owners of land or buildings.

(C) Furthermore, the plaintiff et al. asserts that red (number 2 omitted), (number 23 omitted) and (number 23 omitted) should be considered as one land owner or building owner, and red (number 2 omitted) and (number 3 omitted) in the same place as building (number 2 omitted) located (number 2 omitted), and (number 4 omitted) should be considered as one land owner.

As long as the owner of each of the above real estate is different, the owner of the above real estate cannot be deemed as one land or owner solely on the ground that he/she has a spouse or a relative relationship among the owners as alleged by the Plaintiff, etc., and it should be deemed as a separate land or building owner as calculated by the

(6) The plaintiff et al. asserts that the owners of land, etc. who withdrawn their establishment consent before and after the establishment authorization of this case should be excluded from the number of consenters of the establishment authorization of this case, and the following is examined.

G. Whether the withdrawal of consent is recognized

(1) Relevant provisions

Article 17(1) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that consent to housing environment improvement projects (Article 8(1) through (4)), consent to the establishment of an association establishment promotion committee (Article 13(2) and Article 14(4)), consent to the establishment of an association (Article 16(1) through (3)), consent to the designation of a project implementer (Article 26(3)), consent to the designation of a project implementer (Article 26(3)), consent to the project implementation authorization (Articles 28(7) and 33(2) shall be based on written consent using a seal imprint and attached with a seal imprint certificate. Article 17(2) provides that procedures, etc. for the consent of owners of land, etc. shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree (Article 23).

Accordingly, Article 28(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act provides that "the owner of land, etc. may withdraw his/her consent or may express his/her dissenting opinion before filing an application for authorization or permission under the former part of Article 17(1) and Article 12 of the Urban Improvement Act: Provided, That where any matter referred to in any subparagraph of Article 26(2) is not modified after the consent to the authorization of the establishment of the association under Article 16 of the Urban Improvement Act, such withdrawal shall not be made even before the application for the authorization of the establishment of the association is filed," each subparagraph of Article 26(2) provides that "the summary of the design of the building to be constructed (Article 1) (Article 26(2) (Article 26(1)), the estimated amount of expenses incurred in removal and new construction of the building (Article 26(2) (Article 2), the allocation standard for expenses (Article 3), the ownership attribution (Article 4), and the articles of association of the association (Article 5).

(2) The parties' assertion

With regard to the interpretation of Article 28(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas, the plaintiff et al. asserts that the consent of the association establishment can be withdrawn without breathing the seriousness of the changed matters where the matters of each subparagraph of Article 26(2) are changed before applying for authorization for the establishment

In this regard, the intervenor association asserts that even before the application for authorization to establish the association, if the matters under each subparagraph of Article 26 (2) of the Enforcement Decree are significantly changed, that is, if the establishment of the association is approved, the consent to establish the association can be withdrawn at least only in the case of a change in the contents of the consent to establish the association that requires authorization.

(3) Interpretation of the proviso of Article 28(4) of the Enforcement Decree

(A) Article 4(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas provides for a modification of the contents of a rearrangement plan (Article 16(1)), the authorization for the establishment of a cooperative (Article 16(3)), the modification of the articles of association (Article 20(3)), the authorization for the modification of the implementation of a project (Article 28(1)), the authorization for the modification of a management and disposition plan (Article 48(1)), etc., only a report to the head of a Si/Gun without obtaining a separate authorization or permission is required to be made. Articles 12, 27, 32, 38, and 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas provide for a specific case that constitutes a “minor modification”

On the other hand, Article 28(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, which is a requirement for the withdrawal of consent to establish an association, only provides that "the matters of each subparagraph of Article 26(2)" shall be classified into "minor modification" and "serious modification".

(B) In particular, the same purport is the outline of the design of a building to be built, the total amount of expenses incurred in removing and constructing a new building, while the proviso of Article 16(1) of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the Modification of the Establishment of △△△ Group (Article 27 subparag. 2-3 and 2-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the Establishment of △△△ Group), and the proviso of Article 28(4) of the Act on the Consent of the Establishment of △△△△ Group is stipulated as the grounds for revocation of consent prior to the application for the establishment

Therefore, the application of the proviso of Article 28(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas cannot be readily concluded as a minor reason on the ground that other provisions of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas stipulate the above reasons as a minor reason. Therefore, without any reasonable reason, the proviso of Article 28(4) can not be construed as limiting the term “a change in the matters of each subparagraph of Article 26(2) after consent to the establishment of an association” to “a change in the matters of each subparagraph of Article 26(2) after consent to the establishment of an association.”

If the Defendant’s assertion, “an alteration to the matters of each subparagraph of Article 26(2)” under the proviso of Article 28(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions is deemed to be divided into a minor alteration and a serious alteration, there is a high possibility of infringing upon the property rights or housing rights of the owners of land or structures without any clear legal basis, and the procedural stability of the urban renewal project may be harmed by legal disputes.

(C) The reasons under each subparagraph of Article 26(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, namely, an outline of the design of a building to be built (No. 1), a rough amount of expenses required for the removal and new construction of a building (No. 2), standards for sharing expenses (No. 3), matters concerning the attribution of ownership after the completion of the project (No. 4), and matters concerning the association’s articles of association (No. 5) affect the rights and obligations of the owners of land, etc. according to various projects under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, and accordingly, the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, as well as the details of the rights and obligations of the association members, is modified as well as economic profit

Therefore, if the cause of each subparagraph of Article 26(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions occurs even if some of the causes are changed, it is reasonable to give the owners of lands, etc. who can acquire membership status in the future, an opportunity to reconsider the decision-making. In addition, it is difficult to find a reasonable reason to distinguish the reasons of each subparagraph of Article 26(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act from a minor change and a significant change.

(D) A reconstruction project has a large number of interests and needs to undergo a collective decision-making for the implementation of the project, and the decision-making at each stage is based on the existence of the decision-making after the decision-making at each stage, and in particular, the establishment of an association is centered. Accordingly, after the application for authorization for establishment of an association, the withdrawal of consent from the owners of land, etc. may be restricted depending on the need to ensure the protection of collective decision-making, smooth and stable implementation of the project, and smooth implementation of the project to determine the number of consenters of an administrative agency.

However, the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides that the establishment of the association shall be decided through a written resolution. In light of the nature of the written resolution, where a certain time is required until the date of establishment of the resolution and there are changes in circumstances, free decision-making and changes therein should also be protected. It would be unreasonable to excessively restrict only the “cancellation of consent” in the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, even though there is no restriction on the expression of consent, and even if the withdrawal of consent is permitted before the application for the establishment of the △△△△△△△△, the stability of the procedure is not undermined unless the association is established yet.

In particular, the consent to the establishment of a reconstruction association contains an expression of intent in the case of a landowner and a building owner to remove the building owned by him and use the site for the reconstruction project, and in the case of a person who owns only one of the land or buildings, he/she would accept the claim by the reconstruction association for sale of the land or buildings owned by him/her as the counterpart to the request by the reconstruction association. Since the △△△△ decision is a serious disposition on the property rights or housing rights of the landowner or building owner, it is necessary to ensure that the owner of land, etc. has to make a more careful decision through free exchange of opinions between the inaugural general meeting or residents, and there is a change in the outline of the project or the content of cost sharing according to the progress of the reconstruction project, and there is a change in the information on profits and losses arising therefrom, even if the owner of land, etc. who has consented to the authorization to establish the association, it is necessary to determine whether to consent to the establishment of the association by taking into account the changed information

(E) In addition, the smooth implementation of reconstruction projects after the establishment of the association is consistent with the public interest of the owners of the land or buildings in the rearrangement zone, which is necessary for the public interest to strictly restrict the withdrawal of consent to establish the association, but on the other hand, prior to the establishment of the association, the need for such public interest is relatively small, but there is a need to guarantee owners of the land, etc. an opportunity to freely make a decision on whether to consent to re-building through the inaugural general meeting or the discussion between residents, or to guarantee their property rights

(F) Article 28(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions shall be deemed to limit the time of withdrawal of consent to establish an association before applying for authorization to establish an association, and the reason for withdrawal of consent shall be deemed to be the reason for each subparagraph of Article 26(2). Thus, even if the owner of a plot of land, etc. consented to establish an association, he/she may withdraw consent to establish an association before applying for authorization to establish an association.

(4) Amendment to any of the subparagraphs of Article 26(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act

(A) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 17 Evidence No. 17-2, 3, 5, and 18-5, the instant written consent drafted by the △△△ Committee from the owners of land, etc., the design outline of the new building was written as “34,817 square meters in the site area, 110,174.48 square meters in the total floor area, 10,174.48 square meters in the apartment ( underground 3 stories, 7-20 stories on the ground) and 540 households in 10,000, and the data distributed at the residents’ general meeting on June 21, 2009 were written as 60 square meters in the residents’ common facilities, and the underground portion among the residents’ sports facilities was 700 square meters in 700 square meters in the △△△△△△△△, which was 250 square meters in each of the above 164 and 2516 square meters in each of the building area changed into 26165.5 square meters.

(B) According to the above facts, the summary of the design of a building to be constructed was modified, i.e., Article 26(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, and there was room for modification of the remainder of the matters under each subparagraph of Article 26(2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions. This constitutes an alteration of the matters under each subparagraph of Article 28(2) proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, and thus, the owner of a plot of land, etc. who originally consented to

(C) Accordingly, the Intervenor Union asserts as follows:

In other words, the outline of the design of the project implementation plan ratified by the third inaugural general meeting of May 30, 2010 is merely a difference between the outline of the design of the instant written consent and the outline of the design of the project implementation plan, which was ratified at the third inaugural general meeting of May 30, 2010, and is merely a change in the floor area ratio, building-to-land ratio, total floor area, and number of households, etc. as the area for common facilities installed in underground floors among ancillary and welfare facilities was altered to insignificantly. In fact, the details of the plan was changed to insignificantly in accordance with the basic urban and residential environment plan by the committee prior to the designation of the rearrangement zone before the designation of the rearrangement zone, which was the subject of the designation and announcement of the rearrangement zone in this case, and the details of the plan were resolved at the first and third inaugural general meeting of the owners of the land, etc., who submitted the written consent to establish the association at the third inaugural general meeting of the rearrangement zone in this case, and thus, there was no proper outline of design in this case.

(D) The owner of a plot of land, etc.’s consent to establish an association is a disposal act that brings about the reversion of property rights, such as his/her ownership, or significant changes in its contents, by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances regarding the rearrangement project, and thus, the subjective intent of the owner of a plot of land, etc. is more important than anything else. However, it is difficult to view that the owner of a plot of land, etc. could have easily confirmed whether the outline of the design of the books distributed by an individual at the residents’ general meeting and the outline of the design of the public notice in the official report at the time of the designation and public notice of the rearrangement zone was consistent with the objective facts. Thus, the owner of a plot of land, etc. is bound

Therefore, the owner of a plot of land, etc. shall be deemed to have consented to the establishment of an association under the presumption that a reconstruction project will be implemented in accordance with the explanation at the residents' general meeting or the outline of the design stated in the instant written consent. If the intervenor association came to know that there was a change in the information on the grounds under Article 26 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, regardless of the seriousness of the objective change or change, it is reasonable to deem that there was a change in the information on the grounds under the subparagraphs of Article 26 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, which were perceived by the owner of a plot of land, etc. at the time of the consent of the establishment of an association, in itself, regardless of the seriousness of the objective change or change in the contents, it is reasonable to deem that the owner of a plot of land, etc. can withdraw the consent of the intervenor association under the proviso of Article 28 (4) of the Enforcement Decree

(5) Calculation of the number of valid withdrawals of consent

(A) The owners of land, etc. who revoked their consent to establish an association before May 31, 2010, upon which the promotion committee applied for authorization of the establishment of the instant case, are indicated as follows.

1. Indication of the number of real estate contained in the main sentence (Seoul Hongdong omitted) No. 20. 1. 25 on the date of revocation of consent from the owner of the land, etc. (number 25 omitted) No. 3 (non-party of the judgment) on June 30, 2010; 16. 3 (number 26 omitted) on June 24, 2010 (number 26 omitted); 20. 1. 4. 5 on July 28, 2017 (number 4 omitted); 20. 1. 4. 5 on July 28, 2010 (number 27 omitted); 20. 1. 5. 1. 20 on July 25, 2009 (number 15. 20. 4 omitted); 20. 1. 5. 1. 25. 20 on July 28, 2019

(B) On this issue, the Intervenor and the Union asserted that the withdrawal of their consent by Nonparty 16 and 17 should be excluded from the withdrawal of consent, inasmuch as they enjoy the rights and duties of the Union members by participating in the inaugural general meeting of July 14, 2010, with the knowledge that it would not be legitimate.

Article 17(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides that not only the consent to the establishment of an association but also the withdrawal of agreed matters shall be based on the written consent using the seal imprint, and the certificate of personal seal impression shall also be attached thereto. The above provision is a mandatory provision and has no validity of the withdrawal of consent or consent without the above method. Therefore, it is confirmed that the non-party 16 and 17 already submitted a written withdrawal of consent to the establishment of an association in the above manner to the promotion committee or the defendant, and it is confirmed that the consent has been withdrawn, and it does not become a member of the intervenor association on the ground that the consent was actually participated in the activities of the association

Therefore, Nonparty 16 and 17 cannot include Nonparty 16 and 17 in the number of consenters to the establishment authorization of this case unless Nonparty 16 and 17 attached a certificate of personal seal impression to the promotion committee or the defendant and did not submit a new letter of consent to the establishment authorization of this case (the intervenor association, when the plaintiff was in the trial, shall be deemed to have withdrawn consent from the previous nine persons to the non-party 16 and 17. However, in light of the entries in the plaintiff's preparatory document or the contents of subsequent pleadings on January 11, 2012, the plaintiff merely refers to the person who has withdrawn consent except the non-party 16, 17, and the non-party 16 and 17, before applying for the establishment authorization of the association, and it cannot be deemed to have completely withdrawn his/her consent to the establishment).

(C) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff et al. asserts that since 12 owners of land, etc. withdraw their consent or withdraw their consent again after the establishment authorization of this case was granted, the said persons who withdrawn consent should be excluded from the number of consenters.

On the other hand, the statutory consent rate for authorization for the establishment of an association under the Urban Improvement Act requires that the association shall be met at the time of authorization by the competent administrative agency, which is the person having the authority to authorize the establishment, and once the administrative agency approves the establishment of an association, the establishment becomes effective. Even if the consent is withdrawn thereafter, the validity of authorization for the establishment of an association is not affected, and it is merely reflected in calculating the consent rate at the next stage after the establishment of an association (the designation of a project implementer, the authorization for the implementation, and the

(D) If so, nine owners of land, etc. who have withdrawn consent to establish an association effectively before applying for the establishment authorization of the promotion committee of this case. Thus, the said nine persons should be excluded from the number of consenters who agreed to establish an association at the time of the establishment authorization of this case

(h) Defect in below the statutory consent rate;

(1) Recalculation the consent rate;

(f) If the number of the owners of a plot of land, etc. is re-determined in accordance with paragraphs (1) and (g) above, as the whole number of the owners of a plot of land, etc. is re-determined, a maximum of 275 persons (280 persons in number of the owners of the plot of land or a building recognized by the defendant = 280 persons in number of the owners of the plot of land or a building recognized by the defendant £­ buildings on the Dong (number 4 omitted) and their ground, one overlapping calculation for two overlapping calculation for the Dong (number 11 omitted), dong (number 14 omitted), dong (number 15 omitted), one overlapping calculation for the (number 6 omitted), (number 7 omitted), (number 8 omitted), (number 9 omitted), (number 10 omitted), (number 12 omitted), (number 13 omitted), 16 (number 16 omitted) and (13) Dong number omitted.

In addition, if the number of the owners of land, etc. who have agreed to establish an association in the same manner is re-determined, a maximum of 202 persons (number 214 persons who have consented to the establishment of an association = number 214 persons who have consented to the establishment of an association - red (number 4 omitted) and their ground buildings (number 5 omitted) and one overlapping calculation (number 11 omitted) - red (number 11 omitted) and two overlapping calculation (number 14 omitted) - red (number 14 omitted), (number 15 omitted), one overlapping calculation (number 15 omitted), nine persons who have consented to withdrawal of consent ＋ red (number 16 omitted), red (number 13 omitted), Dong (number 13 omitted), and one person who has omitted the ground buildings

(2) The existence of a defect

Therefore, at the time of the authorization for establishment of this case, the consent rate of the owners of land, etc. = maximum of 73.45% (number of owners of land, etc. who agreed to establish an association ± total number of owners of land, etc.) is less than 3/4 of the owners of land or buildings stipulated in Article 16(3) of the Urban Improvement Act. However, even though the statutory consent rate necessary for establishing an association falls short of the statutory consent rate, there is a defect in the authorization for establishment of this case

6. Whether notification and provision of perusal was made after the establishment authorization of this case was granted

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since there was no notification or provision of perusal after the establishment authorization of this case, the authorization of this case was defective.

B. Determination

Even if the Defendant did not notify the association members or the previous owners of the land, etc. after the establishment authorization of this case was issued, it cannot be deemed that there was a defect in the establishment authorization of this case retroactively due to such circumstance. Thus, the above assertion by the Plaintiff, etc. is without merit.

Ⅲ Judgment as to the primary claim

1. Whether a defect is serious or clear;

(a) Existence and gravity of a defect;

Although a promotion committee applied for authorization to establish an intervenor association without meeting the requirements for consent of at least 3/4 of the owners of land or buildings stipulated in Article 16 (3) of the Act on the Establishment of Housing Reconstruction Association, the defendant calculated the number of consenters by overlapping or omitting the number of consenters, or calculated the number of consenters including the number of consenters who have lawfully withdrawn consent to establish an association, etc., so that the approval of the establishment of this case was granted by deeming that the requirements for consent under Article 16 (3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents are mandatory, and this constitutes a serious defect.

(b) Clearness of the defect

(1) Although the consent ratio of the owners of land, etc. at the time of authorization for the establishment of this case, which was duly calculated pursuant to the Urban Improvement Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, can be deemed to exceed 73.45%, the consent ratio of the owners of land, etc. at the time of authorization for the establishment of this case cannot be deemed to fall short of 3/4 of the land or building owners required under Article 16(3) of the Urban Improvement Act, the Defendant

(2) As seen earlier, the Defendant’s erroneous ground for calculating the consent rate is that, in the event that a public official in charge owns a large number of land or buildings, the public official in charge owns a large number of land or buildings, and in the event that a person in charge of △△ owns land or buildings in the name of several State agencies, the construction of relevant provisions, including Article 28(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents was erroneous, or there was no clear provision on the law, or there was no clear precedent in the interpretation of Article 28(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents concerning the revocation of consent before approving the establishment of the association, it appears that there was no clear precedent in the interpretation of the “change of reasons under each subparagraph of Article 26(

(3) If the above circumstances are the same, even if a parcel of land or a building is owned in several state agencies’ name, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant objectively apparent that the entire owner should be deemed the State, or that the owner of the land or a building may withdraw his/her consent without being serious in cases where any change is made to the matters under the subparagraphs of Article 26(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions

2. Sub-committee

Thus, although the defendant's establishment authorization of this case has a significant defect in calculating the consent rate, it cannot be seen that the defect is objectively obvious, and thus it cannot be deemed null and void. Therefore, the main claim of this case is without merit.

IV. Judgment on the Preliminary Claim

1. Defect and illegality of authorization for establishment of this case

As examined earlier, the Defendant’s establishment authorization of this case was seriously defective in failing to meet the requirements for the consent under Article 16(3) of the Urban Improvement Act. Thus, the Defendant’s establishment authorization of this case violates the Urban Improvement Act and thus, barring any special circumstance, shall be revoked.

2. Whether the defects are cured or supplemented;

A. The intervenor's assertion

Even if the establishment authorization of this case is illegal, six parts of the written consent of the owner of the land or building were additionally submitted, and at least 3/4 of the consent ratio requirements were met, and the defects of the establishment authorization of this case were cured or the requirements were supplemented as the defendant made the first or third modification authorization.

B. Determination

(1) On June 4, 2010, the intervenor union obtained the establishment authorization of this case from the defendant on June 4, 201, and thereafter submitted an additional written consent from △△△ on March 29, 201, and obtained the first revision authorization from the defendant, and submitted an additional written consent from △△△ on June 20, 201, and obtained the second revision authorization from the defendant. The fact that the defendant submitted an additional written consent from △△△△△△△ on July 7, 2011, and submitted the third revision authorization from the defendant. If the six written consent is simply added to the number of consenters at the time of the establishment authorization of this case, the consent rate for the establishment establishment of the association is 75.64% [208 persons (202 persons + 6 persons) ± ± 275 persons who own land or buildings)], and the consent rate is 75% more than the statutory consent rate per 75%.

(2) However, in an administrative litigation, whether an administrative disposition is illegal shall be determined on the basis of the relevant statutes and factual state at the time of an administrative disposition; it shall not be affected by the amendment or repeal of statutes or changes in the actual state after the disposition; the cure or transition of any defective administrative act is not permissible in principle in light of the nature of the administrative act or the point of view of the rule of law; on an exceptional basis, if an administrative act is repeated, and such act is allowed for the sake of the legal stability of the parties, it shall be recognized in accordance with specific circumstances to the extent that it does not infringe upon the rights and interests of the people (see Supreme Court Decisions 82Nu420, Jul. 26, 1983; 2010Du2579, Aug. 26, 2010,

(3) The authorization of establishment of an association under Article 16(1)29 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents has the nature of the establishment of an association, and even if the authorization of establishment of this case is recognized as the cure or conversion of defective authorization, it cannot be concluded that there does not occur any damage to the land or building owners including the plaintiff or the designated parties. Thus, the above assertion by

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Intervenor Union cited Supreme Court Decision 2009Da63380 Decided July 15, 2010, which held that even if the quorum is insufficient even if it was insufficient to obtain authorization for establishment or authorization for modification without meeting the quorum for establishment of a reconstruction association, such defect may be deemed cured if it satisfies the quorum with additional consent within a reasonable and small period of time. However, the above Supreme Court Decision not only leads to 1.25% of the quorum which falls short of the quorum but also was issued with additional consent within 20 days from the date of authorization for modification and obtained additional authorization for modification before the lawsuit, and there is no room to change the outline of the housing reconstruction project within the said period. Thus, it is difficult to view that the lawsuit of this case was part of the lawsuit of this case and only one year or more after the date of authorization for establishment of this case was passed, and it is also applicable to this case where the subsequent procedure, such as filing a lawsuit and requesting for sale after the authorization for establishment of this case, was under way.

(4) Also, we examine the relationship between the establishment authorization of this case and the first and third modification authorization.

According to the Urban Improvement Act, a reconstruction association has the status as an administrative body that performs certain administrative actions within a rearrangement zone under the Urban Improvement Act within the scope of the purpose of implementing a housing reconstruction project under the supervision of the competent administrative agency (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da60568, Sept. 24, 2009); when the promotion committee intends to obtain authorization for the establishment of a reconstruction project, it shall file an application for authorization meeting the statutory consent rate required under Article 16 (2) or (3); and when it intends to modify the authorized matters, it shall meet the statutory consent rate: Provided, That where it intends to modify minor matters under the proviso of Article 16 (1), it may report it to the head of Si/Gun without the consent of its members; and Article 27 (31) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act provides for the name and address of the main office of the association, the name and name of the head of the association (Article 16 (1) 1); and the modification or alteration of the association members' rights to a rearrangement zone (Article 4).

In this context, even if an administrative agency issued a disposition of modification of a minor matter as stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for which identical requirements and procedures are not required, the nature of the disposition shall be deemed to be merely the meaning of accepting the report of modification of a minor matter as stipulated in the above provision, separate from the original authorization disposition for the establishment of the association, and it shall not be deemed that the authorization disposition for modification, which is a permanent authority disposition, is not absorption (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du4555, Dec. 9, 2010).

On the other hand, in cases where the initial establishment authorization disposition did not meet the statutory consent rate, and thereafter a new establishment report is made to meet only the requirements for establishment of a reconstruction association, even though the report method of minor matters was made, the substantial content of the establishment is to supplement the substantive requirements of the association establishment by adding new written consent in addition to documents proving the written consent and consent of the owners of land, etc. submitted at the time of the previous authorization and the minutes of inaugural general meeting. Thus, as long as the competent administrative agency issued the modified authorization disposition based on the changed consent rate, the authorization disposition itself can be evaluated as an independent authorization disposition separate from the existing authorization disposition, and the determination of whether the authorization disposition satisfies the substantive requirements based on the time of the modified authorization disposition should be made. If the original authorization disposition becomes invalid or invalidated after the reason for invalidation or cancellation satisfies the legitimate requirements for establishment establishment establishment establishment establishment report after the report of minor matters, this is because if the new establishment authorization disposition becomes invalid or invalidated from the beginning due to the lack of collective intent made it difficult to improve the residential environment and procedural efforts made by the administrative agency as well as the existing authorization disposition.

As above, the defect of the previous establishment authorization disposition is not cured because it is assessed by the valid establishment authorization disposition. This is because even if the original establishment authorization disposition becomes invalid because it fails to meet the substantive requirements or is cancelled by the court's decision formally, it is necessary to separately determine its validity in light of the fact that the valid establishment authorization disposition has absolute influence on the subsequent establishment procedure as the permanent establishment disposition, and it cannot be said that the previous establishment authorization disposition becomes invalid or that the previous establishment authorization disposition is added to the subsequent establishment authorization disposition.

(5) In full view of the above, the authorization of this case should be revoked as it is unlawful because of serious defects below the statutory consent rate, and even if the third authorization of this case is deemed to have been satisfied through the third authorization of the modification, it cannot be deemed that the defect of the authorization of this case is cured or retroactively less than the consent rate requirement is corrected, regardless of whether the third authorization of this case is valid as a valid authorization of the establishment from that point of time.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's establishment authorization of this case should be revoked because it is illegal, so the preliminary claim of this case is reasonable.

V. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the conjunctive claim is accepted as reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as above according to the changes in the claim made in the trial. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List of Selectioners and Exemption of Related Acts]

Judges intentionally (Presiding Judge) and in the order of the highest order

Note 1) The content of the regulation is as shown in [Attachment 3]

2) The instant case concerns only whether the authorization to establish an intervenor association is null and void or revoked, and there is no other issue, such as a separate request for sale, etc., and Article 16(3) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that “the owners of land or buildings located in an improvement zone, other than a housing complex, is also included in the subject of consent to establish an association.” As such, the concept of the owners of land, etc. under Article 2 subparag. 9(b) of the Urban Improvement Act and the category of the owners of land, etc. under Article 16(3) of the

Note 3) The content of the regulation is as shown in [Attachment 3]

Note 4) The content of the regulation is as shown in [Attachment 4]

Note 5) The content of the regulation is as shown in [Attachment 3]

Note 6) The content of the regulation is as shown in [Attachment 4]

Note 7) Contents of the Regulations are as listed in [Attachment 6].

Note 8) Contents of the Regulations are as listed in [Attachment 4]

Note 9) The content of the regulation is as shown in [Attachment 3]

Note 10) The content of the regulation is as shown in [Attachment 4]

Note 11) The content of the regulation is as stated in [Attachment 3]

Note 12) Contents of the Regulations are as stated in [Attachment 4]

Note 13) Contents of the Regulations are as stated in [Attachment 4]

Note 14) The content of the regulation is as stated in [Attachment 3]

Note 15) The content of the regulation is as stated in [Attachment 4] <1>

Note 16) The contents of the regulation are as shown in [Attachment 5].

Note 17) Contents of the Regulations are as stated in [Attachment 4]

Note 18) The content of the regulation is as shown in [Attachment 3]

Note 19) The content of the regulation is as stated in [Attachment 4]

Note 20) The content of the regulation is as stated in [Attachment 3] <2>

Note 21) The content of the regulation is as stated in [Attachment 4]

Note 22) The content of the regulation is as stated in [Attachment 4] <3>

Note 23) The content of the regulation is as stated in [Attachment 3] <2>

Note 24) Contents of the Regulations are as stated in [Attachment 4]

Note 25) Contents of the Regulations are as stated in [Attachment 4]

Note 26) The content of the regulation is as stated in [Attachment 3]

Note 27) The content of the regulation is as shown in [Attachment 3] <2>

Note 28) The content of the regulation is as stated in [Attachment 4]

Note 29) The content of the regulation is as shown in [Attachment 3] <2>

Note 30) The content of the regulation is as stated in [Attachment 3]

Note 31) Contents of the Regulations are as stated in [Attachment 4]