208Nu387. Revocation, etc. of a report of dissolution;

The Housing Reconstruction Improvement Project Promotion Committee of the 2nd House Zone;

Seo-gu Daejeon District Court Decision 57-1201

Ma-○○

Attorney (Omission)

The head of Seo-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City

Litigation Performers Lee 00

Daejeon District Court Decision 2007Guhap3406 Decided January 9, 2008

May 29, 2008

July 24, 2008

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

On July 9, 2007, the defendant's disposition to accept the report of dissolution against the plaintiff on July 9, 2007 is revoked, and the defendant's disposition to accept the report of dissolution against the plaintiff on July 9, 2007 confirms that the disposition to accept the report of dissolution is null and void.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Of the 378 owners of land, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “owners of the instant land, etc.”) located in 82,005 meters in the Seo-gu Daejeon-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, 220 persons constituted the Plaintiff to promote the housing reconstruction project in the Yeongdong-dong 2, and the Plaintiff was approved for the establishment by the Defendant on October 12, 2006 pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. On July 4, 2007, 2007, among the owners of the instant land, etc., 193 residents, including Hu○○○○, were the representative of Hu○○○○, and submitted a written consent for dissolution to the Defendant on the grounds that they oppose the housing reconstruction project in Modong-dong District Two Zone, and reported the dissolution of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant report of dissolution”).

C. Upon review of the written consent to dissolution as above, the defendant accepted the report of dissolution of this case on July 9, 2007 by deeming that a majority of the land owners (378 persons at the time of establishment of the plaintiff, but they seem to have been changed to 373 persons at the time of submission of the above written consent to dissolution) agreed to the dissolution of the plaintiff (the "disposition of this case" in this case).

D. On July 9, 2007, the Defendant sent a notice of dissolution stating the purport that the Plaintiff was dissolved due to the instant disposition, such as the Plaintiff’s report on the change of promoters, etc., and that the Plaintiff may file an administrative appeal and administrative litigation against the instant disposition.

E. Since the instant disposition, the Defendant did not accept the Plaintiff’s request for replacement of the Plaintiff’s promoters on the ground that the Plaintiff was dissolved, and notified the Defendant that the Defendant would file a complaint pursuant to Article 85 subparag. 3 of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Violations of the warning that the Plaintiff did not engage in the activities, such as sending documents in the name

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 12, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the result of the documents verification conducted by the first instance court, the whole arguments by the parties

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons, and sought revocation of the disposition of this case or seek confirmation of the invalidity of the disposition of this case.

(1) The report of dissolution of the association establishment promotion committee under the Urban Improvement Act (hereinafter referred to as the "promotion committee") can only be made by the promotion committee, and the report of dissolution of this case by the owner of land, etc. is invalid.

② The Defendant, prior to rendering the instant disposition, failed to undergo such procedures despite prior notification and hearing of the deadline under Articles 21 and 22 of the Administrative Procedures Act with respect to the Plaintiff.

③ The instant report of dissolution cannot be deemed to have been made based on the genuine intent of the consenters, such as where a certificate of personal seal impression submitted for other purposes is inappropriate.

B. Defendant’s assertion

① Dissolution of a promotion committee is an immediate effective measure if the owner of land, etc. resolves dissolution, and acceptance of the report of dissolution is merely an act of fact. This does not constitute an administrative disposition that is the object of an appeal lawsuit.

② A report on dissolution against a promotion committee shall be deemed to be capable of not only the promotion committee but also the owners of land, etc., and the instant disposition is not subject to prior procedures.

3. Determination on this safety defense

The issue of whether an administrative disposition is deemed an administrative disposition can not be determined abstract, general, and in specific cases, an administrative disposition is a law enforcement with regard to specific facts conducted by an administrative agency as a public authority, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the people. The contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and whether the act satisfies the requirements of establishment and validity as an administrative disposition to a certain extent in the substance, form, procedure, etc. of the subject, the actual relation between the act and the other party and the disadvantage suffered by interested parties, and the principle of administration by the rule of law and the attitude of the administrative agency and interested parties related to the pertinent act should be determined individually.

① Since the Defendant’s above dissolution report is accepted and notified to the Plaintiff that “if there is an objection to this disposition, it may bring an administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act and the Administrative Litigation Act, or send an administrative office”, the instant disposition is deemed to have a separate form of administrative disposition. ② Article 5(3) of the Regulations on the Operation of the Promotion Committee for the Establishment of Consolidation Cooperatives provides that the dissolution of the former Promotion Committee shall be made by filing a report with the Mayor, etc. with the consent of the owners of the land, etc., and Article 77 of the Urban Improvement Act provides that the former Promotion Committee shall be made by filing a report with the Mayor, etc., and the competent administrative agency, such as the Mayor, etc., shall grant the general supervisory authority on the improvement project. In the event of a dissolution report, the competent administrative agency shall accept the report only if it satisfies the requirements for the dissolution report, and it shall be deemed that the promotion committee was dissolved by the receipt of the report. ③ If the Defendant does not accept the Plaintiff’s promotion committee’s alteration report under the premise that the Plaintiff is dissolved, the Plaintiff’s legal status of the Plaintiff’s act of this case.

Therefore, since the instant disposition constitutes an administrative disposition that is the subject of an appeal litigation, the intention of this case is without merit.

4. Whether the disposition is legitimate (with regard to the request for revocation).

(a) Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

B. Determination

(1) Although the Urban Improvement Act does not have any separate provision regarding dissolution of the promotion committee, Article 5 of the Regulations on the Operation of the Promotion Committee of the Promotion Committee of the Promotion Committee of the Promotion Committee established pursuant to the delegation of Article 15(2) of the Urban Improvement Act provides for dissolution of the promotion committee, and Article 5 of the Regulations on the Operation of the Promotion Committee of the Promotion Committee of the Promotion Committee established pursuant to the delegation of Article 15(2) provides that "the promotion committee may be dissolved when the association is established, all business and assets may be transferred to the association," and "the promotion committee may be dissolved by reporting to the head of Si/Gun with the consent of at least 2/3 of the owners of lands, etc. who have consented to the establishment of the promotion committee or with the consent of a majority of the owners of lands, etc.," and Article 36(1) proviso of the Rules on the Operation of the Plaintiff also provides for the same contents as the proviso of the Civil Act.

(2) A promotion committee is naturally dissolved when its purpose is achieved due to the establishment of a non-corporate group, which originally aims to establish an association (see Article 77(1) of the Civil Act). Article 5(1) of the above operational regulations provides for legal relations between the promotion committee and the association to be dissolved as stipulated in the latter part of Article 15(4) of the Urban Improvement Act. In the event of special circumstances, such as where the promotion of a rearrangement project is impossible or the waiver of the promotion of the project, the promotion committee may be dissolved even before the establishment of the promotion committee. In applying Articles 77(2) and 78 of the Civil Act, which are the regulations on the requirements for dissolution, 3/4 or more of the promotion committee's members or 3/4 of the promotion committee's members' consent to dissolution or reconstruction, 'at least 2/4 of the promotion committee' shall be decided by resolution of the promotion committee', 'at least 3/4 of all owners of land, etc.' prior to dissolution or dissolution of the promotion committee.

(3) The Defendant may report dissolution of the promotion committee to the owners of lands, etc. who are not the promotion committee. However, inasmuch as the majority of the owners of lands, etc. of this case consented to reconstruction and constituted the promotion committee, the owners of lands, etc. who have consented to reconstruction and the members of the promotion committee must do so by themselves. The act of reporting dissolution with the consent of the owners of lands, etc. is not merely a report of fact to the effect that the promotion committee was already dissolved, but also an act of extinguishing the promotion committee, which is the person in existence and activity, during the promotion of reconstruction, and it is only possible for the promotion committee, unless otherwise expressly provided for in law. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that

Even if a majority of the owners of land, etc. oppose the promotion of re-building, the Defendant asserts that unnecessary disputes surrounding re-building and waste of expenses between the owners of land, etc. may be prevented. However, insofar as the promotion committee is lawfully organized with the consent of a majority of the owners of land, etc., even if the committee has an objection to the details of the activities and re-building project plan, and the aggregate number of the persons who have opposed to re-building is the majority of the owners of land, etc., such opinion shall be resolved through the procedures such as raising problems through a residents' general meeting, explanation, debate, alternative proposal, etc., which is the decision-making body for the promotion of the re-building project, and the owners of land, etc. who have consented to the re-building project may not be deemed to legally affect the direction of re-building by the resolution of the residents' general meeting, and even if so, it may not be deemed that the majority of the owners of land, etc., who have the right to legally consent to the re-building project may continue to be implemented through the resolution of dissolution requirements of the promotion committee (see, etc.).

(4) Therefore, the instant report of dissolution is unlawful as the acceptance of a report by an unauthorized person.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is reasonable and acceptable. Since the judgment of the first instance court sharing the conclusion is justifiable, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Awards and decorations (Presiding Judge)

Correction America

Mobile smoke;

Site of separate sheet

【Related Acts】

m. Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Act

Article 13 (Establishment of Partnership and Composition of Promotion Committee)

(1) When persons other than the head of Si/Gun or the Housing Corporation, etc. intend to implement the rearrangement project, they shall establish the association composed of the landowners, etc.: Provided, That the same shall not apply to cases where the owners of lands, etc. intend to independently implement the urban environment rearrangement project under

(2) Where it is intended to establish an association under paragraph (1), the association shall be organized with five or more members including the chairman, with the consent of a majority of the owners of lands, etc., and the method and procedure as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and the approval of the head of Si/Gun shall be obtained.

(1) Every promotion committee shall have one chairperson representing the promotion committee and the auditor, and matters necessary for its operation shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(2) The Minister of Construction and Transportation shall determine the regulations for operating the meeting of promoters including the following matters in the Official Gazette for the fair operation of the promotion committee:

1. Matters concerning the method of selecting members of the promotion committee and changing them;

2. Matters concerning the rights and duties of members of the promotion committee;

3. Matters concerning the scope of duties of the promotion committee;

4. Matters concerning the methods of operating the promotion committee;

5. Payment of operating expenses of owners of land, etc.;

6. Other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree as necessary for operating the promotion committee.

Operational Rules of the Promotion Committee for the Establishment of Consolidation Project Cooperatives (No. 2006-330 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation)

Article 5 (Dissolution) (1) A promotion committee may perform its duties by the date of authorization to establish the association, and when the association is established, it shall transfer all of its affairs and assets to the association, and

(2) A promotion committee shall report the duties it performs to a general meeting under Article 24 of the Act, and the rights and duties related to the duties performed by the promotion committee shall be comprehensively held.

(3) The promotion committee may, where it intends to dissolve the promotion committee prior to authorization to establish the promotion committee, dissolve it by filing a report with the head of Si/Gun with the consent of two thirds or more of the owners of lands, etc. under

Finally.