The case holding that it is unlawful on the ground that the competent Gu office's rejection of an application for change of project plan and completion inspection on the construction of apartment building with the authorization of establishment of the workplace housing association on the ground that the competent office has an unqualified association member, merely because it is merely an internal work rule of the housing association and has no effect to externally bind the people, since it is based

Article 3 subparag. 9 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, Article 42 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 3 subparag. 1 and Article 4(1) of the Rules on Housing Supply

Saong-dong Hyundai Apartment Training Association and 8 others

The head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

The defendant's rejection of the application for modification of the business plan as of March 9, 192 against the plaintiffs and the rejection of the application for completion inspection as of March 12, 1992 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the instant disposition

The plaintiffs are workplace associations organized to sell 708 households on the 340-1 and 4 lots of land in Seoul Pungpo-dong, 340-1 and 708 households on the 1989. The plaintiffs, after obtaining approval for establishment from the defendant on Sep. 29, 1989, filed an application for approval for alteration of a business plan with the defendant on Feb. 12, 1991 for alteration of the exterior and interior structure of the building, and the defendant filed an application for approval for alteration of a business plan with the defendant on Aug. 20, 1991, regardless of approval for alteration of a business plan, and the defendant rejected an application for approval for alteration of a business plan on Aug. 26, 1991. The defendant did not return the above application to the defendant on the ground that it did not obtain approval for alteration of a business plan on Aug. 24, 1991, and the defendant did not request the defendant to submit an application for approval for alteration of a completion inspection within 1998 members' qualifications without consent.

2. Determination on this safety defense

The defendant's rejection of the above business plan modification application and the rejection of the inspection application by the plaintiff's non-qualified partners are all illegal and subject to revocation. The defendant brought a lawsuit in this case without legitimate administrative appeal procedure against the plaintiff union other than the plaintiff union. Thus, the plaintiff union's remaining lawsuit in this case is not legitimate. However, Article 18 (3) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that the plaintiff union can bring an administrative lawsuit against the defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff's business plan modification application on the ground that the plaintiff union is non-qualified union's non-qualified union's non-qualified union's non-qualified union's non-qualified union's non-qualified union's non-qualified union's non-qualified union's non-qualified union's non-qualified union's rejection disposition against the defendant's rejection disposition against the above rejection disposition. Thus, the plaintiff union's non-party union's non-party union's non-qualified union's non-qualified union's non-qualified union's non-qualified union's plaintiff's claim in this case is dismissed.

3. Judgment on the merits

The plaintiffs, based on the guidelines for the establishment and operation of the Housing Association in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (as of March 23, 191, 191), were found to have been subject to the computerized search of the members of the plaintiffs' association on the ground that the fact of payment of property tax on some of the members of the association was found to have not been adjusted, and thus, the above guidelines were not effective externally because they merely go through the Seoul Special Metropolitan City internal business regulations concerning the housing association in light of the nature and contents of the above guidelines, and thus, they cannot limit the right to purchase apartment buildings to be allocated to the members of the association. Therefore, the defendant's refusal disposition based on the above guidelines cannot be a reason. Further, in light of the corresponding provisions of the Enforcement Rule of the Housing Construction Promotion Act that allows the consent of all the members of the plaintiffs' association to obtain the consent of all the owners and the site owners due to non-qualified members in consideration of complicated problems arising from the supply of housing, the above rejection disposition should not be revoked since all the members of the plaintiff's association applied for the change of the business plan in this case.

Therefore, Article 3 subparagraph 9 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act provides that a association established by an employee who does not work in the same workplace for the purpose of acquiring a house shall be defined as a workplace housing association. Article 44 (3) of the same Act provides that a housing association shall be deemed a project undertaker under the same Act, and Article 44 (2) of the same Act provides that matters necessary for the authorization, etc. for the establishment of a housing association shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 42 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, which is the Presidential Decree, does not limit the qualifications of members of a housing association. However, Article 32 of the same Act provides that "the project undertaker shall construct a house in accordance with the conditions, methods, and procedures, etc. of housing supply as determined by the Minister of Construction and Transportation for maintaining the order of housing supply." Article 3 of the Rules on Housing Supply, which is the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, provides that only Articles 4 (1) and 17 of the said Rules shall apply to a housing association.

However, the defendant, on August 26, 191, issued an electronic search for the payment of property tax on the plaintiffs' members of the housing association, and rejected all of the plaintiffs' applications for the establishment and operation of the housing association for this reason. Article 12 of the Guidelines for the Establishment and Operation of the Housing Association (the date of March 23, 191) which the defendant used as the basis for the above announcement of the housing association can be searched using the government's computer network in order to verify the qualifications of the members of the housing association at the time of approval of the housing association or the occupancy of the housing association. However, since the above notification of the housing association cannot be seen as being unlawful for not less than three years since the date of approval of the establishment of the housing association, it cannot be seen as being illegal until the date of the above notification of the housing association's establishment, it cannot be viewed as being a kind of guidelines for housing association's establishment and supply of the housing association's right to the housing association for the reasons that the above provision was not established for one-year period.

4. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claim of this case seeking the revocation of the defendant's application for the approval of modification of the above business plan and the rejection of the application for completion inspection is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Young-il (Presiding Judge) Kim Tae-dae