See the attached list of plaintiffs (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Soh Tae-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor (Law Firm Il, Attorneys Lee Ba-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Establishment Promotion Committee for Housing Redevelopment Projects in Zone Seven (Attorney Kang Sung-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

June 24, 2010

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant's disposition of designating redevelopment improvement zone of 7 houses as Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice No. 2009-84 on March 5, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 23, 2007, the Defendant established and publicly announced the Seoul Metropolitan Government Master Plan for Urban and Residential Environment Rearrangement (the Housing Redevelopment Project Sector) which contains the contents of designating the Handong 128 Man-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul as a rearrangement zone under Article 207-282 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Notice on August 23, 2007.

B. On November 11, 2008, the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government requested the Defendant to designate a housing redevelopment improvement zone as the Seoul Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 128 square meters and 47,821.2 square meters (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”) in accordance with Article 4 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “the Act”).

C. The Defendant: (a) designated and publicly announced the instant rearrangement zone as the 7-house redevelopment rearrangement zone under Article 209-84 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Public Notice on March 5, 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”); (b) designated and publicly announced the instant rearrangement zone as the 7-house redevelopment rearrangement zone for each of the following reasons: (c) abolished the 122-19 large-scale 6,360 square meters in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, as children’s parks (hereinafter “existing children’s parks”); (d) abolished the 130-125 large-scale 6,360 square meters in size as children’s parks (hereinafter “existing children’s parks”); and (e) determined the 3140 square meters in size as children’s parks (hereinafter “existing children’s parks”) under Article 4(1)2 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (amended by Ordinance No. 4949, Mar. 2, 2010).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 and Eul evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The instant disposition is an illegal disposition that lacks the requirements for designation of the rearrangement zone on the following grounds:

(1) Nullity of applicable laws and regulations

A) Nullity of Article 4(1)2 of the Ordinance

Article 4(1)2 of the Ordinance provides for housing adjoining rate (b) and housing density (c) as a housing redevelopment improvement zone. This does not relate to the contents of subparagraphs 5, 2 (a), and (c) of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, which is a provision based on delegation, and thus is null and void as it goes beyond the scope of delegation by the mother law.

(B) Article 10 [Attachment 1] 2(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and Article 4(1)2 of the Ordinance

Article 4(1) of the Act provides that "a zone meeting the requirements prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the concentration of old and inferior buildings, shall be designated as an improvement zone." In full view of the language and text of the above provision and Article 2 subparagraph 2(b) of the Act stipulating that "a project implemented to improve residential environments in an area where infrastructure for improvement is inferior, worn-out and inferior buildings are concentrated," the above provision shall be deemed to have delegated specific matters to Presidential Decree when determining the requirements for designation of a housing redevelopment improvement zone. However, subparagraph 2(b) of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act upon delegation thereof (hereinafter referred to as "Enforcement Decree of this case") provides that "an area where buildings are excessively concentrated and it is difficult to promote the rational use and value of land in the relevant zone," and that "a project implemented to improve residential environment in the area where worn-out and inferior buildings are concentrated, as well as all buildings including ordinary buildings, etc. are concentrated within the relevant zone, the criteria for designation of a housing redevelopment zone can only be designated as a renewal zone.

Therefore, based on the provision of the enforcement decree of this case which is null and void, Article 4 subparagraph 2 of the Ordinance stipulating the two requirements of housing density and housing adjoining rate as the requirements for designation of housing redevelopment improvement zone is also null and void.

2) Non-requirements for designation of a rearrangement zone

A) As to the housing density

Since existing children's parks in the rearrangement zone of this case are abolished due to the project of this case, when calculating the housing density, the number of buildings in the rearrangement zone of this case, including the existing children's park area, should be calculated by dividing the total number of buildings in the rearrangement zone of this case by the total area of the rearrangement zone of this case including the existing children's park area. Such calculated housing density is merely 54.36 (=260 / 4.7821

B) As to the housing adjoining rate

Since at least 100 housing units adjoining a road with a width of at least 4 meters among 249 housing units in the rearrangement zone of this case, housing units in the rearrangement zone of this case are at least 100 housing units, the housing adjoining rate in the rearrangement zone of this case is at least 40.1%,

C) As to subparagraph 2 (b) of attached Table 10 of the Enforcement Decree

Even if the requirements for the lake density and house-to-land ratio prescribed by municipal ordinance were met, it cannot be deemed that the above provision satisfies the requirements such as “area where it is difficult to promote the rational use and value of land within the area,” and thus, the defendant shall separately investigate and determine whether the above requirements are met.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(i) regulations on the requirements for the designation of housing improvement zones;

Article 2 subparagraph 2 (b) of the Act provides that a housing redevelopment project shall be implemented to improve residential environments in an area where infrastructure for rearrangement is inferior, worn-out and inferior buildings are concentrated. Article 4 (1) of the Act provides that a rearrangement plan for an improvement project may be formulated to an area meeting the requirements prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the concentration of worn-out and inferior buildings, and Article 10 (1) [Attachment Table 1] 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the ground that an area subject to the establishment of a rearrangement plan for a housing redevelopment project may not function as a site due to the maintenance of infrastructure facilities at the time of its delegation, or may not function as a site due to the falling short of the land, or may be considerably poor urban environment due to the falling short of the number of buildings, or the excessive concentration of buildings so that it is difficult to promote the rational utilization and value of land in such area, the area where the removal residents are fixed on a scale of at least 50 households, or the population is excessively concentrated, and the residential environment is considerably inferior, and the structure and value of land can be separately determined by municipal ordinance (1) or 4).

On the other hand, Article 4 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas provides that the requirements for designation of a zone subject to the establishment of an improvement plan under Article 10(1) [Attachment Table 1] subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas shall be as follows. Article 2 of the Act provides that "a zone subject to the establishment of an improvement plan shall be at least 10,000 square meters and falling under at least 2 of the following standards."

2) As to the assertion on invalidation under Article 4(1)2 of the Ordinance

As seen earlier, the requirements for designation of a housing redevelopment project rearrangement zone under Article 10(1) [Attachment 1] subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act are stipulated only as an abstract concept of “the loss of utility as a site, excessive concentration of buildings, defect in infrastructure maintenance, etc.” as stated in the relevant item. Therefore, it is necessary for the relevant administrative agency that formulates a rearrangement plan and designates a rearrangement zone to establish detailed criteria for determination in order to examine the above requirements.

Accordingly, Article 4 subparagraph 2 of the above [Attachment Table 1] 5 of the Act and Article 4 subparagraph 2 of the Maintenance Ordinance stipulate the housing redevelopment district as a objective figures in terms of the number of houses density, housing adjoining rate, etc. as specific requirements for designation. In light of the relationship between the contents of the above Ordinance and the above [Attachment Table 1] subparagraph 2 of the above Ordinance, the number of houses density can be viewed as an index for the area where it is difficult to promote the rational use and value of land in the zone because excessive concentration of buildings as provided in subparagraph 2 (b) of the above [Attachment Table 1] is difficult, or the population as provided in subparagraph 1 (c) (d) of the same Table is excessively concentrated, due to the poor maintenance of infrastructure and the poor maintenance of infrastructure, so the housing density ratio is inferior to the above [Attachment Table 1] 2 (c) (d), (e) so that it can not be seen as an index for the area where it is difficult to conduct evacuation and rescue activities as a site.

Therefore, Article 4 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Improvement of Housing within the scope stipulated in subparagraph 2 of the above [Attachment 1] does not exceed the scope of delegation of the Enforcement Decree.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3) Invalidity under Article 10 [Attachment 1] 2(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and Article 4(1)2 of the Ordinance

Subparagraph 2 (b) of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that "an area difficult to promote the rational use and value of land within a certain zone because buildings are excessively concentrated," based on the delegation provisions of the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Act, shall be designated as a housing redevelopment improvement zone. In light of the provisions of subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act, where buildings in a certain zone are excessively concentrated and it is difficult to promote the rational use and value of land within a certain zone, it may be deemed that the worn-out and bad buildings are concentrated, and in such a case, the infrastructure for maintaining roads, parking lots, etc. may also be deemed to be poor. Thus, the above provision of the Enforcement Decree shall not be deemed to stipulate the requirements for designation of a housing redevelopment improvement zone

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion based on the premise that the enforcement decree of this case is null and void is without merit.

4) Non-requirements for designation of a rearrangement zone

A) As to the housing density

Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement provides that "the density means the density calculated by the number of buildings constructed per hectares of the rearrangement zone and the number of buildings calculated according to the following standards", while item (c) provides that "where all or part of existing parks are to be preserved, the total number of buildings in the rearrangement zone shall be calculated by dividing them by the area excluding the area preserved by the number of buildings in the improvement zone."

Meanwhile, Article 9 Subparag. 1(a) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement provides that “In principle, an existing park or green area shall not be included in a rearrangement zone: Provided, That the same shall not apply where it is necessary to restore the function of a park or green area or to improve buildings within such zone and where it is necessary to promote land use.”

As above, in principle, an existing park or green area shall not be included in a rearrangement zone; where it is necessary to recover the function of a park or green area or to improve the land use thereof, and where it is necessary to improve land use thereof, it shall be included in an improvement zone; where an existing park, etc. is not included in an improvement zone, it shall be excluded from the area of an existing park, etc.; where an existing park, etc. is not included in an improvement zone, it shall not distort the housing density; on the other hand, where an existing park, etc. is included in an improvement zone, even if a house is concentrated in an area excluding an existing park, etc., if the housing density is low in the area excluding the existing park area, it may not be determined properly as to whether the area is concentrated with old and poor houses; and Article 2 subparagraph 5 (c) of the Ordinance on the Improvement of Seoul Special Metropolitan City (amended by Ordinance No. 5007, Jul. 15, 2010) shall be calculated by dividing the total number of buildings in an improvement zone into “the existing park or the development zone.”

However, as seen earlier, in the instant improvement zone, the previous children’s parks (8,055 square meters) and children’s parks (2,318.3 square meters) with similar functions are to be installed on behalf of the existing children’s parks (6,360 square meters) in order to restore the function of the park and promote the use of land. As such, it shall be deemed that the existing parks under the above improvement ordinance are preserved. Accordingly, it is reasonable to exclude the existing children’s parks from calculating the housing density as their preserved area.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

B) As to the housing adjoining rate

According to the relevant provisions, such as Article 4(1)1 and 2(b) of the Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Housing, housing adjoining rate refers to the ratio calculated by dividing the total number of buildings on a site adjoining a road with a width of at least four meters by the total number of buildings in an improvement zone, as an index to determine whether there is a shortage of infrastructure for rearrangement, and an area with a housing adjoining rate of at least 30

However, in full view of the purport of the argument as a result of the appraiser non-party 1’s survey and appraisal, the total number of buildings adjoining the road from 4m or more to 4m or more in the vicinity of the rearrangement zone among the buildings within the rearrangement zone in this case, and the total number of buildings within the rearrangement zone in this case is recognized to have been 249, and it is insufficient to reverse the recognition only with the descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 4 and 5. As such, the house-to-land rate in the rearrangement zone in this case is 19.7% and the housing-to-land rate requirement under the rearrangement ordinance is satisfied

C) As to subparagraph 2 (b) of attached Table 10 of the Enforcement Decree

As seen earlier, in full view of the fact that the rearrangement zone in this case satisfies the requirements for the housing density, housing contact rate as stipulated in the rearrangement ordinance, and the status of housing and road arrangement in the instant zone as revealed in the result of Nonparty 1’s survey and appraisal, it can be deemed that the rearrangement zone in this case satisfies the requirements of “area where building excessively concentrated and it is difficult to promote the rational use and value of land in the relevant zone because it is difficult to promote the rational use and value of the land in

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment]

Judges lower-ranking (Presiding Judge)