A. Whether the articles of association can stipulate the duty of voluntary removal of obstacles to the redevelopment association members (negative)

B. Whether a management and disposal plan under Article 41 of the Urban Redevelopment Act was authorized and publicly notified solely based on the fact that the articles of incorporation stipulate the management and disposal plan (negative)

A. In light of the fact that the right to demand the removal or transfer of obstacles granted to the redevelopment association under Article 36 of the Urban Redevelopment Act is forced by the owners of land, buildings, etc. in the redevelopment area to join the redevelopment association, etc., such right is apparent to be the public authority granted for the sake of public interest and such exercise of public authority can only be exercised in accordance with the procedure stipulated by the Act, and it is reasonable for the competent authority to determine the necessity of exercising the above authority granted for public interest. Therefore, the redevelopment association established under the same Act shall not be obliged to provide that its members bear the duty of removal of obstacles immediately without obtaining permission from the competent market, etc. or without following the procedure stipulated by

B. In light of the purport of Articles 40 and 41 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, the fact that the articles of incorporation prepared and submitted at the time of obtaining authorization for establishment and performance of business affairs is stipulated in the management and disposal plan cannot be deemed to have existed the authorization and announcement of the management and disposal plan stipulated in Article 41 of the same Act.

Articles 20, 36, 40, and 41 of the Urban Redevelopment Act

Hong shall be the Housing Improvement and Redevelopment Cooperatives in Zone 5.

Kim Jae-hwan et al.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff and the defendant Kim Jae-dong removed the buildings listed in the attached Form 1 and 2, and the defendant Kim Jae-dong shall 16.51 square meters from among the buildings listed in the attached Table 1 list and 13.24 square meters from among the buildings listed in the attached Form 1 list, and the part indicated in the attached Form 2 (d) of the attached Form 2 from among the buildings listed in the attached Table 1 list, and the part indicated in the same drawing (c) of the same building in which the defendant Hong-dong community credit cooperatives are 12.45 square meters from among the same buildings.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Kim Jae-hwan

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 (a certified copy of the association), Gap evidence Nos. 2 (a certificate of authorization for the implementation of the redevelopment project), Gap evidence Nos. 11 (a certificate of authorization for the establishment of association), Gap evidence Nos. 15-2 (public notice) and the testimony of Park Jong-won evidence No. 15-2 (a public notice) without dispute over their establishment, the plaintiff union may not establish a new redevelopment project with the consent of more than 274 members of the land and buildings in the redevelopment area, and with the consent of more than 32,017, Jun. 2, 1986, the plaintiff union, under the Urban Redevelopment Act, for the purpose of creating a pleasant residential environment and contributing to the promotion of the welfare of the members of the association within the redevelopment area, including the size of the above site and the incidental facilities of the redevelopment project within 274 members of the building site, and it can not be acknowledged that the redevelopment project had been implemented within 360 years from the date of the establishment and execution of the redevelopment project.

First, the plaintiff was the member of the plaintiff Kim Jae-chul, and the articles of association of the plaintiff association imposes the duty to remove the building, etc. of this case as the member of the plaintiff association. Thus, Article 20 of the Urban Redevelopment Act provides that the owner of the land or building in the redevelopment area implemented by the association shall be the member of the association. As seen earlier, the above defendant shall be the member of the plaintiff association, and Article 25 (1) of the articles of association of the plaintiff association provides that the members of the plaintiff association shall voluntarily remove the building, etc. of this case within 30 days from the date of authorization for the implementation of the project, according to the evidence No. 9 (Articles of association) that is recognized to be genuine by the testimony of the witness Park Jong-won, according to the articles of association of the plaintiff association, Article 25 (1) of the plaintiff association shall be the member of the association.

However, Article 36 of the Urban Redevelopment Act provides that a person who executes a redevelopment project in accordance with the procedure stipulated under the Urban Redevelopment Act (hereinafter referred to as an "implementer") may demand the owner of the building or structure within the redevelopment area to remove or relocate the building within the redevelopment area, which is deemed to hinder the execution of the redevelopment project: Provided, That an implementer who is not an administrative agency shall obtain permission in advance from the head of the competent Si/Gun, and if the owner of the building refuses to comply with the request for removal or relocation, the implementer shall be entitled to demand removal or removal of obstacles as prescribed by the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, and the requirements and procedures are prescribed. As seen above, the Urban Redevelopment Act adopts the principle of compulsory purchase by stipulating that the land and building owner in the urban redevelopment area can be a partner of the association, if the owner of the building refuses to comply with the request for removal or relocation of the building within the redevelopment area under the same Act, and thus, the land or building owner's right to demand removal or removal under the provisions of the Urban Redevelopment Act is not likely to interfere with the development and removal of the land within the redevelopment area (Article 67).

In addition, Article 41 of the Urban Redevelopment Act provides that when the developer establishes a management and disposal plan concerning the site and constructed facilities (hereinafter only referred to as the "management and disposal plan") and obtains authorization from the Minister of Construction and Transportation, the owner, etc. of the previous land and buildings shall not benefit from the use of the previous land and buildings within 60 days from the date of the public announcement of the sale after completion of construction. The plaintiff union established a management and disposal plan under Articles 30 through 38 of the articles of association, and received a public announcement of the contents of the authorization in the Official Gazette, and thus, the authorization and public announcement of the management and disposal plan under Article 41 of the same Act was made. Therefore, the defendant Kim Jae-dong, the owner of the previous building, has no right to benefit from the use of the building of this case, and therefore, the plaintiff's request for this case should be made under Articles 40 and 41 of the Urban Redevelopment Act. Thus, the owner of the land and building who wishes to parcel out the site or constructed facilities by the execution of the redevelopment project shall be determined within 10 days from the date of authorization under the above Act.

In addition, as long as the Minister of Construction and Transportation has authorized and announced the management and disposal plan under Article 41 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the ownership of the land and the building in the redevelopment area was fully expropriated by the Plaintiff association without any need to go through the procedures under the Land Expropriation Act by stipulating the sale of the land and the building facilities under the management and disposal plan under Article 38 of the same Act as the condition of ex post compensation. However, as seen earlier, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Minister of Construction and Transportation has approved and notified the management and disposal plan, and even if the above authorization and the notice were given, it is obvious that the said assertion does not naturally take effect unless it is accepted in accordance with the procedure

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Kim Dong-soo, and the same red as one credit cooperative

The plaintiff asserts that in order to preserve the right to remove the building of this case, the owner of the building of this case, etc., the plaintiff sought an explanation of each part of the above possession in subrogation of the defendant Kim Jae, the owner of the building of this case, etc., in order to preserve the right to remove the building of this case. However, as seen above, since there are no grounds for the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff has the right to remove the building of this case against the defendant Kim Jae, the plaintiff's claim against the above defendants on the premise that the above right to remove exists, it is unnecessary to further examine.

3. Thus, there is no assertion or proof as to the right to seek removal of the building, etc. of this case against Defendant Kim Jae-B. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff as the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yellow Sea (Presiding Judge)