[1] In a case where a formation approval disposition is taken with the consent of the majority of the owners, such as the land determined by the zone to be rearranged before the designation and public notice of the rearrangement zone was made under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents before the designation and public notice of the rearrangement zone, whether the defects of the disposition are serious or obvious (negative)

[2] Whether a promotion committee can be formed with the consent of a majority of owners of land in some areas, etc., not all areas of the zone scheduled for rearrangement, where a housing redevelopment project and other zone scheduled for rearrangement is designated (negative)

[1] Article 13(1) and (2) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9444 of Feb. 6, 2009); Article 13(1) and (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents / [2] Article 13(1) and (2) of the Act on the Maintenance

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2010Du9358 Decided September 30, 2010

Plaintiff 1 and 34 others

The head of Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City

Promotion Committee for the Establishment of Urban Environment Improvement Association in New Interest Zone;

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu45400, 45417 decided August 24, 2011

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 13(1) and (2) 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”) provide that “where a person, other than the head of a Si/Gun or the Housing Corporation, intends to implement a rearrangement project, an association consisting of landowners, etc. shall be established, and where such association is intended to be established, an association establishment promotion committee shall be established with the consent of a majority of landowners.” According to the above provisions, it is necessary to determine the scope of “owners of land, etc.” under the premise that the committee is established for establishing an association with respect to various rearrangement projects, such as housing redevelopment projects, and the designation and announcement of a rearrangement zone by the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do governor should be prior to the determination of the scope of “land owners, etc.” (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1297, Oct. 29, 2009).

In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below found the facts as stated in its holding, and held that the new Heung-1 Urban Environment Improvement Project Establishment Promotion Committee (hereinafter the “Promotion Committee of this case”) applied to the Defendant for approval of the modification on the composition of the Promotion Committee of this case after obtaining the consent of a majority of the owners of the land, etc. in some areas, etc. other than the land, etc. in the zone where the improvement was scheduled, so long as the Defendant was aware of such circumstances and applied to the Defendant for approval of the modification on May 24, 2010, as long as the instant disposition was approved on May 24, 2010, the defects of the instant disposition were serious and obvious, and the first approval of the formation against the Promotion Committee of this case on April 18, 2008 was also erroneous, and thus, the disposition of this case, which was based on the above disposition or deemed valid on the consent of

In light of the above legal principles, the court below's measures are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of approval of the formation of an association establishment promotion committee for urban environment rearrangement projects, as alleged in the grounds of appeal

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)