Plaintiff

The head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Law Firm Hank, Attorney Park Sang-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

September 26, 2006

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

The defendant revoked on May 16, 2005 the disposition of approval for the implementation of the new apartment reconstruction project to the 6th apartment house reconstruction association.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The new distribution, 6th apartment house reconstruction association (hereinafter “the instant association”) is a housing reconstruction association that obtained authorization for the establishment of the housing association from the defendant on February 1, 2002, by holding an inaugural general meeting on August 19, 2001 and applying the floor area ratio to 285.12% to implement the housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “the instant reconstruction project”) with its members who consent to the reconstruction resolution among the sectional owners of the new distribution six apartment complexes on the ground (number omitted) of Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu (hereinafter “the instant apartment complex”), among the sectional owners of the apartment complex.

B. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is the Plaintiff’s member of the instant apartment (Dong-dong 1 omitted); Nonparty 1 is the Appointor of the instant apartment (Dong-dong 2 omitted); and Nonparty 2 is the Plaintiff’s member of the instant apartment (Dong-dong 3 omitted); and Nonparty 2 is the Appointor of the instant apartment (Dong-dong 3 omitted).

C. On April 2, 2005, the association of this case applied the floor area ratio to 299 with the consent of 271.12% including the person who submitted a written resolution among the 492 members at the special general meeting (hereinafter referred to as "the resolution of this case") and decided to revise the project implementation plan to newly build a total of 707 households, including 25 square-type 144 households, 32 square-type 281 households, 43 square-type 282 households (hereinafter referred to as "the resolution of this case"), and applied an application for authorization to implement the housing reconstruction project to the defendant on March 25, 2005, along with the project implementation plan, etc.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 9 through 11, Gap evidence 14, Gap evidence 16, Eul evidence 34, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 6-1 and Eul evidence 6-2, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's assertion

Even if the Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiffs, etc.”) are members of the instant association, and they suffer disadvantages as set forth in the following 3.A. due to the instant authorization disposition, this is merely an indirect, indirect, and economic disadvantage that they suffered as members, and the instant authorization disposition that is beneficial to the entire members of the association, which is related to the Plaintiff’s legal interest, is proved by the Plaintiff, etc., which is a part of the association members, and therefore, there is no standing to sue seeking revocation of the instant authorization disposition.

B. Determination

Although the disposition of this case is a disposition against the association of this case, the plaintiff et al., as a member of the association of this case, is unable to purchase a 42-class apartment house due to the disposition of this case's authorization against the association of this case. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the disadvantage the plaintiff et al. received by the disposition of this case is nothing more than an indirect, indirect, or economic disadvantage, and even if the association of this case is admitted to have standing to sue to seek revocation of the disposition of this case's authorization, it is not expected that the association of this case which filed an application for authorization of this case with the defendant of this case's project implementation is seeking revocation of the disposition of this case's authorization, and therefore granting standing to sue to the plaintiff et al. is the most efficient means to correct illegality which can be accompanied by the disposition of this case's authorization, and therefore, the plaintiff et al. has standing to sue, therefore the above argument of the defendant is without merit.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant authorization disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) The resolution of this case is to newly construct 42 square-type apartment units, 705 units of 42 square-type apartment units, and to newly construct 25 square-type 144 units, 32 square-type 281 units, and 43 square-type 282 units of 282 units of 25 square-type apartment units. Accordingly, if a project is implemented pursuant to the resolution, some of the members of the association of this case, unlike rebuilding resolution, shall not purchase 42 square-type apartment units. Thus, the resolution of this case shall be adopted with the majority opinion of 4/5 or more of the sectional owners and voting rights pursuant to Article 47(2) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, despite the fact that the resolution of this case was only the simple majority of the members of the association, the defendant reported this case differently.

(2) According to Article 32(3) of the Act, Article 16(1) of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 7600, Jul. 13, 2005; hereinafter the same) and Article 32(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Building Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 512, May 12, 2006; hereinafter the same), the instant association has secured ownership of the site for the implementation of the instant reconstruction project at the time of filing an application for the instant authorization, and submitted documents on its ownership to the Defendant. However, the instant association did not secure ownership of the site for the instant reconstruction project at the time of filing an application for the instant authorization, and did not submit documents on its ownership.

(b) Relevant statutes;

[Attachment 2]

C. Determination

(1) Determination on the first argument

Article 28(4) of the Act, effective at the time of the instant authorization disposition, provides that “A project implementer shall obtain prior consent from the owners of land, etc. (in cases of a housing reconstruction project, referring to members of the association; hereinafter the same shall apply) as prescribed by its articles of association, etc. before applying for authorization of the project.” However, Article 6 of the Addenda of the Act provides that “Notwithstanding the amended provisions of Article 28(4), consent from the owners of land, etc. regarding a housing reconstruction project, consent from the owners of land, etc. shall be governed by the previous provisions until the relevant articles of association, etc. is amended.” Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant association amended its articles of association, etc. pursuant thereto, Article 28(4) of the former Act (amended by Act No. 7392, Mar. 18, 2005; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be applied at the time of the instant authorization disposition. However, Article 28(4) of the former Act provides that a

On the other hand, Article 28(1) of the Act provides that the project implementer shall attach articles of association, etc. and other documents as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation to the project implementation plan when receiving the project implementation authorization, and Article 9(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act provides that the documents to be attached are one of the documents to be attached, which is the list of owners such as the land under Article 28(4) of the Act and the list of landowners such as the land, etc., but in the case of housing reconstruction project

In light of the above relevant provisions in this case, the association of this case, which is the implementer of the housing reconstruction project, does not have any ground to view that the consent of 4/5 or more of the owners such as sectional owners and voting rights or land is necessary before applying for the instant authorization as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no need to attach a written consent of landowners and land owners while applying for the instant authorization. Thus, the association of this case, which is the implementer of the housing reconstruction project, did not have to attach a written consent of the land owners and land owners. As to the project implementation plan revised in accordance with the procedures stipulated in Articles 18(1)2 and 19(1) of the Union Regulations, the defendant issued the instant authorization disposition with respect to the application for the instant authorization after obtaining consent of a majority of union members

(2) Judgment on the second argument

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 8, Gap evidence Nos. 25, Eul evidence Nos. 25, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 7, the whole purport of the pleadings is as follows: The apartment site of this case is the site of this case, which is the site of this case, which was acquired by the owner of the apartment of this case, but was omitted in the process of site ownership registration, and the ownership registration was completed on January 24, 192 in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and on August 24, 2001, the ownership transfer registration was completed on August 24, 200, but the non-party 3, 4, 5, and 6, who are members of the association of this case, filed a lawsuit claiming the registration of ownership preservation and ownership transfer registration, and received the above judgment of Seoul Central District Court 2004Gahap10911, which became final and conclusive on Nov. 4, 2004 and the above appeal No. 25016

According to the above facts, although the association of this case failed to complete the registration of ownership transfer on the above land at the time of the application for the authorization of this case, it is deemed that it had secured ownership of the above land necessary for the application for the authorization of this case before the application for the authorization of this case was made. Even if the authorization of this case was made without submitting documents related to the ownership, the authorization of this case cannot be deemed unlawful on the sole basis of such reasons. The plaintiff's assertion on this different premise is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate. Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of this case is justified on the premise that the approval disposition of this case is unlawful, and it is decided as per the Disposition.

[Attachment 1] List of Selection 1]

Judges Kim Jong-hwan (Presiding Judge)