Whether there is a legal interest in seeking revocation or nullification of a disposition of organizing an association establishment promotion committee, where a disposition of approving the establishment of an association is pending during the lawsuit disputing the disposition of approving the establishment of an association promotion committee under the former Act on the Maintenance

In light of the contents, form, system, etc. of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Article 13(1) and (2), Article 14(1), Article 15(4) and (5), etc. of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9444, Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “former Act”), the establishment approval disposition of an association establishment promotion committee (hereinafter “promotion committee”) is a disposition granting its effect by supplementing the organization act of the promotion committee, which is the principal agent for the establishment of the association, and constitutes an interim disposition to achieve the final objective of establishment, but its legal requirements or effect is an independent disposition different from that of the approval disposition of the promotion committee establishment. Therefore, where a lawsuit is pending during the lawsuit, the cancellation or confirmation of invalidity of the approval of the establishment approval of the promotion committee cannot prevent the progress of the rearrangement project by the association which has already been granted the approval of the promotion committee establishment. Therefore, it should be viewed that there is no direct dispute over the establishment approval of the promotion committee.

Articles 13(1) and (2), 14(1), and 15(4) and (5) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Amended by Act No. 9444, Feb. 6, 2009); Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Dokdo, Attorneys Gyeong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 decided May 1, 201

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu28559, 28556 decided April 22, 2011

We reverse the judgment of the court of first instance. The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and all the lawsuits of this case are dismissed.

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. According to Articles 13(1) and (2), 14(1), and 15(4) and (5) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9444, Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “former Act”), where a person, other than the head of a Si/Gun or the Korea Housing Corporation, intends to implement a rearrangement project, an association consisting of owners of land, etc. shall be established; where such association is intended to be established, five or more members, including the chairperson, shall obtain approval from the head of a Si/Gun in accordance with the methods and procedures prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, with the consent of a majority of the owners of land, etc., and when the association is established, the promotion committee shall perform the duties necessary to establish an association, such as preparing for the establishment of the association, and when the association is established, report the affairs performed by the promotion committee to the general meeting of the association and related documents within 30 days from the authorization date of the association establishment.

In light of the contents, form, system, etc. of the relevant laws and regulations, the organization approval disposition of the promotion committee is an interim disposition to supplement the composition action of the promotion committee, which is the principal agent for the establishment of the promotion committee, and its effect falls under the interim disposition to achieve the ultimate objective of the establishment of the association, but its legal requirements or effect is an independent disposition different from that of the disposition of the approval to establish the promotion committee. Thus, the revocation of the approval or the confirmation of invalidity of the establishment approval cannot prevent the progress of the rearrangement project by the association already obtained the approval to establish the promotion committee. Therefore, where the disposition of the approval to establish the promotion committee is made during the lawsuit pending in the lawsuit, the organization approval disposition of the promotion committee shall be deemed unlawful and invalid, thereby preventing the progress of the rearrangement project by directly disputing the approval to establish the promotion committee. Furthermore, it shall be deemed that there is

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, on April 27, 2005, the defendant issued an approval (hereinafter "approval disposition of the promotion committee of this case") to establish a housing redevelopment project association for large-scale and Class 1 district under Article 13(2) of the former Urban Improvement Act, and issued a disposition to approve the change of the promotion committee on April 24, 2007 (hereinafter "approval disposition of the promotion committee of this case"). The plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation of invalidity of approval and approval of change of the promotion committee of this case was pending in the court below on October 4, 2010, and the redevelopment project association establishment approval disposition of large-scale and Class 1 district housing redevelopment project association (hereinafter "approval disposition of preemptive association establishment") was finalized on August 19, 201, but it became final and conclusive on April 19, 2019 as the court below's approval of the establishment of the redevelopment project association.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since a prior disposition to authorize the establishment during the lawsuit in the lower court was made, and the prior disposition to authorize the establishment of an association was canceled or finalized by litigation, but thereafter the subsequent disposition to authorize the establishment was re-established, the Plaintiffs should directly dispute the disposition to authorize the establishment of an association on the ground that there was an error of law in the approval and approval for modification of the promotion committee of this case, and thus, there is no legal interest to seek nullification of the approval and approval for modification of the promotion committee of this case against the Intervenor.

3. Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, and this case is sufficient to render a direct judgment by the Supreme Court. Since the judgment of the court of first instance, which judged on the merits of this case, is obvious that it is unlawful in the same reasoning as the judgment of the court of first instance, it is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is all dismissed, and the total cost of the lawsuit is borne by

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)