[1] The matters to be examined when the administrative agency that received the application for authorization to establish redevelopment cooperatives decides to authorize the establishment of redevelopment cooperatives, and the contents of the consent and the standard for determining authenticity when examining the consent of the owners such as the land, which is the requirement for authorization to establish redevelopment cooperatives

[2] In a case where Gap Housing Redevelopment Project Promotion Committee established a housing redevelopment project partnership's association was approved by an administrative agency with 343 written consent from 454 owners of land in a rearrangement zone, the case holding that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principle or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, on the ground that the written consent form "the outline of the construction of a new building" and "the outline of the construction of a new building" should be treated as invalid, and that the written consent form "the total cost of removal of a building and the total cost of new construction" should not be considered as satisfying the consent requirement of 3/4 or more of the owners of land, etc. under Article 16 (1)

[1] Article 16 (1) and (5) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9401 of Jan. 30, 2009), Articles 26 (1) and 28 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21171 of Dec. 17, 2008), Article 7 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Ordinance No. 79 of Dec. 17, 2008), Article 16 (1) and (5) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9401 of Jan. 30, 200), Article 26 (1) and (3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2009Du4845 decided Jan. 28, 2010 (Gong2010Sang, 434)

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Attorney Kim Byung-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

[Defendant-Appellant] Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kim Jae-py et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu5785 decided June 1, 2011

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

When the committee for promotion of redevelopment projects under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9401, Jan. 30, 2009; hereinafter “former Act”) intends to establish redevelopment cooperatives, it shall obtain authorization from the competent administrative agency by attaching the articles of association and the documents determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs with the consent of at least 3/4 of the owners of the land, etc., and on the other hand, necessary matters concerning the application for establishment of redevelopment cooperatives and the procedure for authorization for establishment thereof shall be determined by Presidential Decree (Article 16(1) and (5) of the former Act). Thus, in determining whether to authorize the establishment of redevelopment cooperatives, the administrative agency, who has received an application for authorization for establishment of redevelopment cooperatives, shall examine whether at least 3/4

Meanwhile, the consent is based on a written consent stating the statutory matters and attaching a certificate of seal impression. [Article 26(1) and Article 28(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21171, Dec. 17, 2008; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Act”)] The above written consent must be submitted to the competent administrative agency at the time of applying for authorization for the establishment of redevelopment association [Article 7(1)3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 79, Dec. 17, 2008)] The purport of requiring the consent of the owner in writing, such as the establishment of redevelopment association under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and submission to the competent administrative agency at the time of applying for authorization for the establishment of redevelopment association is required to prevent disputes between related persons, including land owners, and to meet the administrative consent requirements.

Therefore, in examining the consent of the owners of the land, etc. which is the requirement for authorization to establish a redevelopment association, the administrative agency in receipt of the application for authorization to establish a redevelopment association, above all, shall examine the contents of consent based on whether all the statutory matters of each subparagraph of Article 26(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act are included in the consent form, and ② as to the authenticity of consent, it shall be examined on the basis of whether the stamp image affixed on the consent form and the stamp image of the certificate are identical. In addition, as to any of the above criteria, the consent form that fails to meet the above criteria shall be treated as invalid, and it shall not be treated as valid at will (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du4845, Jan. 28

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on June 25, 2004, the Mayor of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government designated the size of 753-9 square meters and 56,930.45 square meters as a rearrangement zone on June 25, 2004. However, on April 10, 2008, the size was reduced to 53,149.5 square meters and designated and publicly announced the rearrangement zone. The Promotion Committee for the Establishment of the Housing Redevelopment and Development Project in Dud Zone 6 (hereinafter referred to as the "Promotion Committee of this case") applied for the authorization of establishment of 343 among 454 owners of land in the rearrangement zone, etc., and the defendant applied for the authorization of establishment of this case on September 4, 2008. The promotion committee of this case requested part of the consent prior to the designation of the rearrangement zone, and recognized the change of the date of preparation in the 89th written consent or the change of the consent, etc.

The lower court determined that, on the basis of the above facts found, the written consent of the rest 86 Chapter 86, excluding Chapter 3 of the invalid written consent, was valid, and thus, satisfied the requirements that consent of at least 3/4 of the owners of the land, etc. under Article 16(1) of the former Act

However, according to the records, in the written consent (No. 1-290) of the non-party (No. 1-290), the second "design outline of a new building" and "a total of the cost of removal and construction of a new building" can be known to the fact that the two pages of the written consent (the "design outline of a new building" and "a total of cost of removal and construction of a new building" are public spaces. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, the above written consent shall be deemed null and void and void, and in this case, it is highly likely that it does not meet the requirements for

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Nonparty’s consent was obtained from more than 3/4 of the owners of the land, etc. on the premise that the Nonparty’s consent consent was valid. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the criteria for examining the consent of the owners of the land, etc., which is the requirement for authorization to establish a redevelopment association, or by failing

The plaintiffs' ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)