logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.07.22 2015구합63067
시공자신고수리처분무효
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are all the plaintiffs, including the costs incurred by the supplementary participation.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 27, 2001, the C apartment reconstruction association promotion committee held an inaugural general meeting (hereinafter “instant inaugural general meeting”). The following items were resolved with the consent of 400 persons among the 786 owners of the entire land, etc. at the instant inaugural general meeting, and 391 persons.

No. 7: 391 (in writing 209), 8 (in writing 4), 1 person, 1 person:

B. On August 12, 2003, the intervenor reported to the defendant on August 12, 2003, that the intervenor was selected as the contractor of the C Apartment Housing Reconstruction Project (hereinafter “instant project”). On the 25th of the same month, the defendant notified the intervenor of the report on the selection of the contractor pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) (Act No. 6852, Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter “the instant Addenda”).

(2) On October 27, 2001, 201, 2003 (51.3%) No. 11, 2001, 201.

C apartment reconstruction association promotion committee has obtained approval from the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on July 26, 201, and C apartment housing reconstruction project association has obtained authorization from the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 5, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, 7, 15, 16 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Even if the intervenor did not submit an additional written resolution to the defendant at the time of the plaintiffs' assertion, or submitted it, it cannot be deemed that the 12th written resolution was made after August 9, 2002, and it cannot be deemed as a valid consent under Article 7 (2) of the Addenda to the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, and the number of consenters who appear in any appearance and are effective shall be the inaugural general meeting of this case.

arrow