logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1999. 2. 5. 선고 97누14606 판결
[조합원지위확인][집47(1)특,348공1999.3.15.(78),483]
Main Issues

Whether there is a benefit in legal action against the Housing Improvement Redevelopment Cooperative after the management and disposal plan has been finalized (affirmative)

Summary of Judgment

In cases where a housing improvement redevelopment partnership denies the membership of a person who asserts that he/she is a partner, the person who asserts that he/she is a partner has the interest in filing a lawsuit against the said partnership to seek confirmation of the status of the partner by removing any risks or omissions existing in his/her rights or legal status, and the management and disposal plan may not only be amended until the sale in lots is made, but also the above legal principles on the interests of the lawsuit shall not vary because the plan

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 20(1) (see current Article 14), 41(1) (see current Article 34(1)), and 41(2) (see current Article 34(2)) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 5116, Dec. 29, 195); Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Da31235 delivered on February 15, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 768) Decided 93Nu918 delivered on July 14, 1995

Plaintiff, Appellant

Plaintiff

Defendant, Appellee

Dobongcheon7 District 1 District Housing Improvement Cooperatives (Law Firm, Attorney Han-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu27041 delivered on July 31, 1997

Text

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case against the defendant association that the defendant association owned an unauthorized building within the execution zone of the Housing Improvement Improvement Project for Zone 7 District in Dobong-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was implemented in accordance with the relevant provisions of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5116 of Dec. 29, 1995; hereinafter the same shall apply) and acknowledged the fact that the management and disposal plan for the above redevelopment project was approved on December 30, 195 and confirmed as it is without recognizing the plaintiff as a member, and immediately against the defendant association in the stage following the determination of the management and disposal plan, it is not allowed to obtain the confirmation as a member of the association in civil litigation or public law. In addition, even if the plaintiff is recognized as a member of the defendant association as alleged by the plaintiff, the purpose of the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was impossible to form the judgment itself, and thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was dismissed.

2. However, in a case where the defendant, who is a housing improvement redevelopment partnership, denies the membership of the plaintiff who asserts that he is a member of the association, the plaintiff has the interest in the lawsuit against the defendant association to seek confirmation of the membership status by removing any risks or deficiencies existing in his rights or legal status. In addition, the management and disposal plan may not only be amended until the sale in lots is carried out (see Articles 41(2) and 43 of the Act and Supreme Court Decision 93Nu9118 delivered on July 14, 1995). The above legal principles as to the interest in the lawsuit do not vary because the plan became final and conclusive.

Nevertheless, the court below's determination that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful on the ground that there is no benefit of lawsuit as seen earlier is erroneous. It erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the benefit of lawsuit against redevelopment association in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of membership status, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal assigning this error

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)

arrow
심급 사건
-서울고등법원 1997.7.31.선고 96구27041
본문참조조문
기타문서