(영문) 부산고등법원 2015.4.15.선고 2013누3221 판결

2. However, on April 4, 2013, the amendment of the management and disposal plan approved by the head of the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan Government Office on April 4, 2013 by Defendant Dae-gu Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association is illegal;

3. Of the total litigation costs incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant Dae-2 Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association, the plaintiffs shall bear the remainder, and the defendant Dae-2 Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association shall bear the costs of appeal against the defendant Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City. The plaintiffs shall bear the costs of appeal against the defendant Nam-gu of Busan Metropolitan City, and the costs of appeal against the participation shall be borne by the supplementary intervenors.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The change of the project implementation plan approved by the head of the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "head of the Gu") on October 19, 2012, which was made on October 19, 2012, the change of the management and disposition plan authorized by the defendant association on October 19, 2012, the change of the management and disposition plan approved by the head of the defendant association on April 4, 2013, the change of the management and disposition plan approved by the head of the Gu on April 4, 2013, and the change of the management and disposition plan approved by the head of the Gu to the defendant association on April 4, 2013.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The Defendant Cooperative is a housing redevelopment development project partnership established to implement a housing redevelopment project within 165,070m of 1595,070,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

(b) Designation of an improvement zone, the first project implementation plan and management and disposal plan, and litigation related thereto;

1) On June 15, 2005, the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor announced the designation of the improvement zone for the instant project zone as Busan Metropolitan City’s announcement No. 2005-166.

2) On November 16, 2005, the Defendant Union obtained authorization from the head of the Defendant’s office. At the time, the design outline based on the written consent for joint establishment was 2,823 households, and the project cost was 5,087 billion won.

3) On August 16, 2007, the Defendant Union obtained the approval of the project implementation plan (hereinafter “the first project implementation plan”) from the head of the Defendant’s Gu, and the project implementation plan was publicly announced as Busan Metropolitan City’s Public Notice No. 2007-39 on August 22, 2007.

4) On July 16, 2009, the Defendant Union notified its members of the average of the values appraised as of the authorization date of the initial project implementation plan for the instant project implementation plan for a dialogue appraisal corporation and a light appraisal corporation, and obtained authorization of the plan for the management and disposal of the land to the head of the Defendant on May 10, 2010 (hereinafter “Initial management and disposal plan”) through the public announcement of sale in lots and the procedures for application for

5) On December 18, 2009, some members filed a lawsuit against the defendant association seeking invalidation of the initial project implementation plan and cancellation of the initial management and disposal plan (the Busan District Court 2009Guhap6071). On May 13, 2011, the above court rejected the judgment of the court in favor of the plaintiff on the ground that "In the case of the initial project implementation plan, consent form for the implementation of the project drafted before and after the establishment of the defendant association cannot be seen as legitimate consent, it becomes invalid due to a quorum, and even if the project implementation plan is substantially modified even if the consent form of the original management and disposal plan is substantially modified, the first management and disposal plan is also null and void because it fails to meet the aggravated quorum requirements, and accordingly, the first management and disposal plan is also null and void. The appeal by the defendant association (the court 2011Nu2040) did not change the original management and disposal plan's new approval form or new cancellation of the new management and disposal plan's new approval form as the first management and disposal plan's order.

6) On the other hand, on May 26, 2011, the head of the Defendant’s Gu revised the project implementation plan with respect to the Defendant Union for four years from the date when the project implementation was authorized, and publicly notified the project implementation on June 1, 2011. The head of Busan Metropolitan City publicly notified the change of the rearrangement zone on the ground that the minor decrease in the area due to the survey conducted under Article 2011-213 of the Busan Metropolitan City’s notification on June 8, 201.

C. Project implementation plan and management and disposition plan of this case

1) On November 26, 201, when the lawsuit at issue is pending, the Defendant Cooperative held an extraordinary general meeting (hereinafter “instant general meeting”) on November 26, 201, and resolved on the modification of the project implementation plan as shown below with the consent of 888 of the total number of 1,241 members, 712 members in written resolution, and 208 members in direct 920, and 208 members (hereinafter “instant changed project implementation plan”) and the head of the Defendant on October 19, 2012, approved the implementation of the instant project implementation plan with respect to the Defendant Cooperative on October 24, 201, and announced it under Article 2012-120 of the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City Public Notice of the first project implementation plan and the instant project implementation plan as listed below.

A person shall be appointed.

2) On October 25, 2012, the Defendant Cooperative notified the members of the application for parcelling-out (hereinafter referred to as the “instant application for parcelling-out”) from October 25, 2012 to November 23, 2012, and included the following: ① the average selling price by unit household and the members’ estimated selling price by unit unit, ② the estimated selling price by unit of neighborhood living facilities, ③ the estimated selling price by unit of neighborhood living facilities, ③ the estimated proportional rate: approximately 115% (the amount of rights of partners = the appraised value of the previous assets of the association members), ④ the estimated charges at the time of the members’ cash settlement, ⑤ The cash settlement subject to cash settlement pursuant to Article 47 of the Act on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”) as the pre-determined appraised value.

3) On January 26, 2013, at a general meeting held on January 26, 2013, the Defendant Union attended 994 members, excluding the union members who did not file an application for sale among 1,241, and passed a resolution with the consent of 918 members. Article 2(1) of the instant management and disposition plan states, “The price calculation of the previous land or structure shall be the arithmetic mean of the assessed amount on the basis of the date when the authorization for the implementation of the project is publicly notified by the appraisal and appraisal corporation and by the ordinary appraisal and appraisal corporation.” The first management and disposition plan and the main contents of the instant management and disposition plan are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

4) On April 4, 2013, the head of the Defendant approved the instant management and disposal plan, and publicly notified the instant management and disposal plan on April 10, 2013 as Busan Metropolitan City Notice No. 2013-40.

【Unsatisfied Facts, Gap’s evidence 1 through 12, 14, 15, 22, Eul’s evidence 1 through 6, 9, 12, Eul’s evidence 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 (which include each number), partial testimony of witness G of the first instance court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of defenses and lawsuits before the main bills of the Defendant Union

A. Part on the cancellation of the approval of the project execution plan of this case

Defendant Union asserts that the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking the cancellation of the above authorization disposition is unlawful, since the plaintiffs asserted as the grounds for cancellation of the approval disposition of the project implementation plan of this case is not against the inherent defects of the authorization disposition.

On the other hand, this part of the lawsuit is not against the defendant union, but against the head of the defendant union. The defendant union is not in the position of law to make a defense prior to the merits of the lawsuit against the defendant union. However, even if ex officio, the plaintiffs do not seek the revocation of the approval disposition on the ground of defects in the basic act, but claim the unique defects inherent in the approval disposition on the ground of a separate ground, and there is no reason for the prior defense against the defendant union on this part.

B. The part concerning the claim to revoke the instant management and disposition plan

The date when the management and disposal plan of this case became final and conclusive by the resolution of the general meeting of the partnership is January 26, 2013. Meanwhile, the defendant union notified the members of the application for parcelling-out of this case on October 25, 2012. Of the plaintiffs' claims, the part concerning the issue of disputing the base point of time for assessing the value of the previous assets in the plaintiffs' claim (i.e., the part concerning the claim for cancellation of the management and disposal plan of this case) was known that the plaintiffs was the first approval date of the project execution plan at least at the time when the plaintiffs received the notice of application for parcelling-out from the defendant union. Thus, the part concerning the claim for cancellation of the management and disposal plan of this case was filed after the lapse of 90 days thereafter, and it asserts that it is unlawful.

On the other hand, the management and disposition plan under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, separate from the authorization disposition for it, is subject to appeal litigation (Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7541 Decided December 11, 2001). It is difficult to see that "the date on which it becomes the starting point of the filing period of the lawsuit is known" or "the date on which it becomes the starting point of the authorization disposition" is also the same as the case of the authorization disposition. However, prior to the issuance of the authorization disposition, the management and disposition plan does not have any legal effect on the interested parties, such as the union members, etc., and it takes full effect if the subsequent authorization disposition becomes effective, but if it fails to obtain the authorization, it may not be seen that "the first management and disposition plan has been established" due to the resolution of the general meeting of the redevelopment association, etc., but it is reasonable to see that it is the time when the authorization disposition becomes final and conclusive prior to the date of the filing of the lawsuit by the interested parties, such as the date of this case's filing of appeal.

Therefore, even in a case of an appeal suit disputing the management and disposition plan itself, it shall be deemed that the period of filing a lawsuit is calculated from the time when it was known that the disposition was made at the expiration of five days after the public notice of authorization of the management and disposition plan was given (Supreme Court Decision 94Nu5694 Decided August 22, 1995).

The facts that the instant disposition plan was approved on April 10, 201 are as seen earlier, and the filing of an application for amendment to the instant disposition plan was received on June 18, 2013, which was within 90 days after 5th day from the filing date, and the instant lawsuit is deemed to have been duly filed within the filing period. Thus, the pre-appeal defense of the Defendant Union regarding this part is without merit.

C. Part on the claim for cancellation of the administrative disposition plan of this case

Of the instant lawsuit, as to the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for revocation of the authorization of the instant disposition to the Defendant Cooperative on April 4, 2013 by the head of the Defendant’s head of the Gu against the Defendant Cooperative, the Plaintiffs did not make any assertion as to the inherent defects of the instant disposition, and filed for revocation of the said disposition by asserting the defects of the body of the person in charge of the instant disposition. The authorization of the management and disposition plan is unlawful, as a supplementary act to complete the legal effect of the management and disposition plan, where there is a defect in the relevant management and disposition plan, which is a basic act, even if the relevant approval was granted, and even if there is a defect in the relevant management and disposition plan, it cannot be deemed as valid. Thus, even if there is no defect in the relevant basic act, the revocation of the authorization disposition does not have any legal interest to file a lawsuit on the ground of the defect in the basic act (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7541, Dec. 11, 201).

3. The assertion and judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Succession to defects due to invalidity of the designation of the rearrangement zone

Article 4 subparagraph 2 (d) of the former Busan Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (amended by Ordinance No. 4025, Sept. 21, 2005; hereinafter the "Ordinance") which requires the small parcel of less than 40% among the entire parcel at the time of the designation of the rearrangement zone, does not meet the requirements for the designation of the rearrangement zone under Article 4 subparagraph 2 (d) of the former Busan Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (amended by Ordinance No. 4025, Sept. 21, 2005; hereinafter the "Ordinance"). Since the "Sanitary Sanitation", the "Undeveloped Building", which is the criteria for the designation of the rearrangement zone at the time of the designation of the rearrangement zone, does not correspond to the old and inferior building under Article 3 (2) 1 through 4 of the Ordinance, the designation of the rearrangement zone in this case is invalid, and the management and disposal plan in this case also is also unlawful.

2) Defect in the project implementation plan of this case

A) Violation of the direct attendance ratio

According to Article 24(5) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, at least 20/10 of the members shall be present directly at the general meeting of the members in order to make a change in the project execution plan at the general meeting of the members. The ratio of the members present at the general meeting

B) Violation of the method of written resolution due to failure to attach an identification certificate

According to Articles 24(3) and 17(1) of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, in order to exercise voting rights based on a written resolution document at a general meeting, a copy of the identity card of the person who submitted it must be attached to the written resolution document. Since such document was not attached to the written resolution document submitted to the general meeting of this case, there was no legitimate written resolution.

C) Unfair procedures for a meeting, such as failure to submit a written resolution and formal defects in a written resolution

The Defendant Union did not directly vote or verify the written resolution at the general meeting of the instant case despite the request of its members. In addition, it was confirmed that there were 2 copies of the written resolution on which the pros and cons are omitted, 3 copies of the written resolution on which the seals are omitted, 1 of the items submitted after the general meeting, 187 of those whose number is not indicated, 7 of those whose number is omitted, or 3 of those whose number is not indicated, or 3 of those indicated contrary thereto.

Ultimately, as such defective written resolution and written resolution are null and void, the general assembly of this case does not meet the aggravated quorum. As such, the general assembly of this case loses its effect, and as a result, the implementation plan of this case is illegal.

D) an increased quorum unsatisfy

(1) This case’s project implementation plan had been modified compared to the initial project implementation plan, and the project cost also increased from KRW 508.7 billion to KRW 853.7 billion as at the time of the initial project implementation plan. Although the project implementation plan of this case’s project implementation plan was approved separately by at least 2/3 of the members, the project cost increased to at least 10% of the increased portion was approved by at least 2/3 of the members. Thus, the project implementation plan of this case did not meet the requirements of the aggravated quorum.

(2) The project implementation plan of this case is to change the actual contents of the previous redevelopment project, and did not meet the consent requirement of at least 3/4 of the union members, which is the requirement for approving the establishment of the association (attached Form 22-33 of the Intervenor joining the Plaintiffs).

(e) failure to provide information on a funding plan;

Defendant Union only stated the project cost changed in the project implementation plan of this case but did not state the difference with the initial project implementation plan, and there was no sufficient discussion about it at the general meeting of this case. Therefore, it did not provide sufficient showing of the funding plan regardless of whether the quorum is met, and thus, its voting rights were infringed.

3) Defect in the approval of the project execution plan of this case

A) Non-verification of the requirements for a written resolution

Although the defendant filed a civil petition from some members that the ballot counting of the written resolution of the general meeting of this case is inappropriate, the head of the Gu did not confirm whether to attach an identification certificate to the written resolution.

B) Failure to verify documents explaining reasons for change

The head of the defendant Gu did not confirm the reason and contents of the project implementation plan when the project implementation plan is revised under the related laws, such as the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas.

C) a failure to implement a new traffic impact assessment;

Although the defendant head of the Gu should conduct a new traffic impact assessment based on the project implementation plan of this case, he/she did not conduct a traffic impact assessment separately.

4) Defect in the instant management and disposition plan

A) Violation of notification on the application for parcelling-out

In notification of the application for parcelling-out, in addition to the development gains rate of ordinary parcelling-out price by type and part of the cost (non-rate), the previous asset value of the association members shall be notified in addition to the pre-sale price by type, and the defendant union shall notify only the proportion to the sale price by type at the time of notification of the application for parcelling-out in this case and did not separately notify the value of the pre-sale asset at the time of notification of the first application for parcelling-out in this case.

B) Illegal as of the base point of time for assessing the previous assets, and as of the disposition plan of this case

This case's project implementation plan constitutes a new project implementation plan that actually changes the main part of the initial project implementation plan, so the defendant partnership has developed the management and disposal plan based on the appraised value of the previous assets based on August 22, 2007, which is the date of approval of the initial project implementation plan, although it had been evaluated and formulated again as of August 22, 2007, which is the date of approval of the initial project implementation plan, which is the date of approval of the project implementation plan. Thus, this case's management and disposal plan was unlawful (the plaintiff in the first instance court, evaluation of the liquidation amount based on the initial project implementation plan based on the base of the calculation of the liquidation value, although it is evaluated as the closing day of the initial project implementation plan, the plaintiff's calculation of the liquidation amount based on the initial project implementation plan is unlawful. However, in the first instance court, it is not argued that the request for proper calculation of cash settlement amount should be made as of the date of approval of the project implementation plan of this case, and the above head of the first instance court should not be judged separately.

(b) Relevant statutes;

The provisions of the attached Table shall be as specified in the statutes.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the assertion of succession to defects due to invalidity of designation of the rearrangement zone in this case

A) According to the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the former Act and Article 10 and attached Table 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21098 of Oct. 29, 2008), the head of a Si/Gun may separately apply to the Do governor for the improvement of the urban environment because the land becomes unusable as a site due to the maintenance of infrastructure, or the small-scale area becomes unusable due to the maintenance of infrastructure, within the scope consistent with the basic plan; "area where the urban environment is likely to be significantly deteriorated due to the aging or poor function of a building;" "area where it is difficult to promote the rational use and value of the land in such area; area where it is difficult for the Do governor to promote the rational use and value of the land in such area; area where the removed residents are settled; area where the population is excessively concentrated; and area where the urban redevelopment project is difficult to improve due to the lack of opinions on the improvement and improvement of the residential environment after the establishment of the urban redevelopment project."

Accordingly, Article 4 subparagraph 2 of the Ordinance provides that the designation of the rearrangement zone in the project area of this case shall be legitimate if only one of the requirements is met, such as "area with a large density of at least 40 percent of the total number of buildings in the zone subject to the improvement plan for the housing redevelopment project", "area with a large width of less than 50 percent or less than 4 meters in the zone subject to the improvement plan for the housing redevelopment project," "area with a large width of less than 30 percent or less than 40 percent or less in total length of roads in the zone subject to the improvement plan for the housing redevelopment project," and "area with a small parcel, an irregular or small-type parcel, or an area with a large number of at least 40 percent in the number of buildings in the zone subject to the improvement plan for the housing redevelopment project."

Meanwhile, "Buildings prescribed by municipal ordinance of a Si/Do as prescribed by Presidential Decree" under Article 2 subparagraph 3 (c) of the former Act and Article 2 (2) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions as buildings, the removal of which is inevitable due to structural defects, etc. caused by deterioration of the buildings refers to buildings for which 20 years have passed after completion of construction and where removal is inevitable due to deterioration of the buildings and structural defects, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du16592, Jun. 18, 2012).

B) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 7-1 and No. 2, the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor: ① is excessively densely concentrated on old and inferior houses that have been over 20 to 30 years in the instant project area; the road network system is poor; land use efficiency is considerably low; and a redevelopment project is urgently required due to the deterioration of the residential environment; and the designation of the rearrangement zone is clearly indicated that it falls under the requirements for old and inferior buildings under Article 4 subparag. 2 of the Ordinance; ② Busan Metropolitan City Mayor also takes into account the maintenance period of old and inferior buildings; ② whether the structure is inferior; ③ whether the poor and inferior buildings are bad in the quality; ③ whether the poor and inferior buildings are bad in the quality; ④ whether the buildings which have been over 20 years in the instant project area are over 20 to 30% in the building in 20 to 30% in 203 to 40% in 20% in east 30% in east 46% in east 46% in east 30.

First of all, considering whether the designation of the rearrangement zone of this case as a requirement for old and inferior buildings is null and void, it is reasonable to consider that the designation of the rearrangement zone of this case is designated as the rearrangement zone of this case by considering the following circumstances: (a) 20 years or more after the completion of the project area of this case as a whole; (b) the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor is not only 45% of all buildings; (c) the maintenance period of the building, structural defect, sanitary defect, and residential obstacle; and (d) the current state of old and inferior buildings, etc. of this case; and (e) considering these circumstances, it is reasonable to consider that the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor is in fact responsible for the designation of the rearrangement zone of this case by considering the current state of buildings which are inevitable to be removed due to deterioration and structural defect in the rearrangement zone of this case; (d) the designation of the housing redevelopment zone of this case under the Urban Improvement Act is based on the special, technical, professional, and technological judgment on the restoration of urban functions within the scope of statutes; and (e) the designation of the rearrangement zone of this case of this case.

On the other hand, the designation of a rearrangement zone is legitimate if only one of the criteria of Article 4 subparagraph 2 of the Ordinance on Old and inferior Buildings, housing density, housing adjoining rate, and under-land meet the criteria of Article 4 subparagraph 2 of the Ordinance. As long as the designation disposition of this case is valid as the requirements of old and inferior buildings as above, even if there is a defect in the designation of a rearrangement zone which requires under-land, the designation disposition of this case cannot be returned to the invalidity of the designation disposition

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

2) Determination on the project implementation plan of this case

A) Whether a direct participant's ratio has been violated

Before the Urban Improvement Act was amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012, Article 24(5) provides that "the procedures for convening a general meeting, timing, method of resolution, etc. shall be determined by the articles of association: Provided, That where a resolution is made at a general meeting, at least 10/100 of partners shall attend directly, but Article 24(5) of the amended Act provides that "the procedures for convening a general meeting, timing, and method of resolution, etc. shall be determined by the articles of association: Provided, That where a resolution is made at a general meeting, 10/10 (referring to 20/100 of partners if the general meeting is prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the project implementation plan and the general meeting that resolves the establishment and revision of the management and disposal plan) of members shall attend directly, and Article 124(5) of the Addenda of the amended Act shall apply from 20% to 10/100 of the members present at the general meeting to 20/10 of the aforementioned amendment.

On November 26, 201, the general assembly of this case was convened before the enforcement of the amended Act. As seen earlier, the provision of the amended Act does not apply to the general assembly of this case, and it would be sufficient if 208 persons, among 1,241 members, directly attend the general assembly of this case, exceed 10% of 10% of 1,241 members, are the same as seen earlier. Accordingly, the aforementioned assertion by the Plaintiffs on a different premise is without merit.

B) Whether the written consent method was violated due to the failure to attach an identification certificate

Article 24(3)9-2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (including withdrawal of consent and expression of opposite opinion) stipulates that "the formulation and alteration of a project implementation plan" shall be decided by a general meeting, and the plaintiffs asserted that the resolution of the general meeting in this case is subject to the written consent under Article 17(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012). Article 17(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (including withdrawal of consent and expression of opposite opinion), which was in force at the time of the general meeting in this case, provides that "the consent (including withdrawal of consent and expression of opposite opinion) shall be accompanied by a written consent with a certificate of personal seal impression affixed. In this case, if a previous certificate of personal seal impression is submitted, it is clear that the above provision does not apply to a general meeting resolution as stipulated by Article 24(3) of the Act.

C) Whether the general assembly procedures are unfair, such as failure to submit a written resolution

(1) First, as to whether it is unlawful for the Defendant Union to directly vote or verify the written resolution at the instant general meeting, Article 24(5) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that the procedures for convening the general meeting and the timing, method, etc. of resolution shall be determined by its articles of association, and does not require direct ballot counting or verification at the site. As to the method of resolution at the general meeting, Article 21(2) of the Articles of association of the Defendant Union can be exercised through a document or an agent falling under each subparagraph of Article 10(2). In the event of a written meeting, “in the event of an assembly, it shall be deemed that the attendance under paragraph (1) is made,” and Article 24(3) of the same Act provides that “In the event that an association member attends the general meeting in writing under paragraph (2), it shall be deemed that it will arrive before the general meeting, with the opinion of the items on the agenda, so that it may not directly submit a written resolution other than the arrival of the written resolution before the general meeting, and that the association’s signature or seal of the general meeting is not unlawful.

(2) Next, as to the formal defect in the written resolution and the illegality of the resolution of the general meeting of this case, the Defendant Union alleged that 712 persons who submitted the written resolution at the general meeting of this case and 708 persons among them expressed their intent to approve. However, according to the evidence No. A. 6, a written resolution submitted to the general meeting of this case was submitted to the general meeting of this case in total 714; 3 of the omission of the entry of the entry of the entry of the entry of the entry of the entry of the entry of the entry of the entry of the 714; and 2 of the omission of the entry of the entry of the entry of the entry of the entry of the entry of the entry of the entry of the entry of the 714; and 1 of the omission of the entry of the entry of the entry of the entry of the entry of the 3; and 2 of the dissenting entry of the entry of the entry of the entry of the entry of the resident registration number cannot be denied.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the general meeting of this case is unlawful due to the formal defect of a written resolution is without merit.

D) Whether an aggravated quorum has not satisfied

As seen earlier, the instant project implementation plan was resolved at the instant assembly with the consent of at least 2/3 of its members.

First, the plaintiffs argued that the change of the project implementation plan and the increase in the cost due to the increase of more than 10% of the project cost should be subject to the separate consent of the members. However, the change of the project implementation plan is subject to the consent of the members and only the expenses of the members are removed, and it is not necessary to obtain the consent of the members of the association as a separate agenda. Therefore, this part of the

Next, the Plaintiffs’ Intervenor asserts that the instant project implementation plan satisfies the requirements for consent of at least 3/4 of the association members, which are the requirements for approving the establishment of an association. However, the instant project implementation plan actually changes the project contents of the first project implementation plan and obtains consent of at least 2/3 of the association members, and the actual consent of at least 2/3 of the association members was obtained, as seen earlier, it is likely that the Plaintiffs’ Intervenor’ Intervenor’s Intervenor’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

E) Whether information on a funding plan was not provided

According to the above evidence, the data distributed prior to the general meeting of this case stated that the outline of design was changed from the five existing underground floors, the 32th above ground, the 31st above ground, the 2,850 households, the 5th above ground, the 35th above ground, the 30th above ground, and the 3,149 years old, and the estimated cost of the fund plan was changed to the 8,53.7 billion won, and that the change in the outline of design was discussed at the general meeting of this case in order to change the large horizontal part of the plan to a small size for the promotion of sale according to the invasion of the housing market. Thus, as long as the increased project cost was increased to the members, the plaintiffs' voting rights were violated, without merit.

3) Judgment on the approval of the project execution plan of this case

A) Whether a written resolution requirement has not been confirmed

Article 17(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012) (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012), which was in force at the time of the resolution of the general assembly of this case, requires the addition of a certificate of personal seal impression by written consent, and does not require the attachment of an identification certificate. Moreover, as seen earlier, the above provision does not apply to the general assembly resolution stipulated in Article 24(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, the plaintiffs' assertion

B) Whether a document explaining reasons for change is not verified

Article 28(1) of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that if a project implementer amends an implementation plan of a project, he/she shall submit a document explaining the grounds for and details of the amendment to the application for authorization of change of the project, along with documents explaining the grounds for and details of the amendment. This purport is to prevent waste of administrative power and promote the convenience of examination by enabling the competent administrative agency to clearly understand the grounds for and details of the authorization of modification. Thus, it is sufficient that a separate document explaining the grounds for and details of the modification

According to the above evidence, the defendant union's submission of a copy of the general meeting minutes of this case to the head of the defendant union while applying for the approval of the modification of the plan for the project of this case. The general meeting minutes contain the circumstances where the design was modified to change a large size of square to a small size of square, the detailed design outline, project cost is stated, the project cost is stated. The fact that the project execution plan of this case includes the change of the number of multi-family housing units, location change, deliberation change, and announcement of the modification of the rearrangement zone as the reasons for the change of the project execution plan of this case is stated. The defendant head of the Gu can easily inform the reasons and contents through the project implementation plan of this case and the copy of the general meeting minutes attached thereto. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion in this part is without merit.

C) Whether a new traffic impact assessment is not implemented

According to the evidence No. 5-1 to No. 5-4, the defendant union prepared a traffic impact analysis and improvement plan following the revision of the project implementation plan on August 21, 201 and requested the deliberation of the Construction Committee to the Mayor of Busan Metropolitan City through the head of the Gu. The Busan Metropolitan City Mayor held a Construction Committee on August 24, 201 and deliberated on traffic impact analysis and improvement plan submitted by the defendant union on August 24, 201, and the head of Busan Metropolitan City notified the head of the Gu on September 1, 201 to supplement the deliberation of the Specialized Committee on the application of the defendant union. Accordingly, the defendant union notified the defendant union of the result of conditional approval to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu on October 21, 201 according to the deliberation of the Special Committee on each sector of the defendant union. Accordingly, the new traffic impact assessment was conducted prior to the approval of the project implementation plan of this case. Accordingly, the

4) Determination on the management and disposition plan of this case

A) Whether notification of the application for parcelling-out is illegal

Article 46 (1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas provides that the project implementer shall notify "the details of preliminary installment payments" at the time of public announcement of application for parcelling-out, and Article 48 (1) 4 of the Act provides that "the details of the previous land or structures for each subject of parcelling-out and the date of public announcement of the project implementation authorization" shall be the price "B, including B" as of the date of public announcement of the details of the previous land or structures for each subject of parcelling-out and the date of public announcement of the project implementation authorization. The purpose of the Act is to provide the owner of land, etc. with judgment data so that he/she may determine whether to apply for parcelling-out based on the value of rights calculated by multiplying the appraised value of the previous assets by the proportional rate.

However, in light of the fact that Article 46 (1) of the Urban Improvement Act does not clearly stipulate the assessment value of the previous asset at the time of notification of the application for parcelling-out, and that there is no problem in deciding whether to apply for parcelling-out if the assessment value of the previous asset has been notified to the members even before the application for parcelling-out, the assessment value of the previous asset does not necessarily need to be notified along with the notification of the application for parcelling-out, and it is sufficient to be notified before it. Since the defendant union issued the notice of the application for parcelling-out on July 16, 2009 after the first project implementation plan is project implementation plan, the company that notified the members of the assessment value of the previous asset at the time of the announcement of the application for parcelling-out, its rights can be calculated to determine whether to apply for parcelling-out, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is any error in the notification of the application for parcelling-out.

B) Whether the time of determining the previous asset price is illegal

(1) The base point of time for calculating the previous asset price

Article 48 (1) 4 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas provides that the previous asset price shall be calculated on the basis of the "date of public notice of authorization for the implementation of a project" in relation to the base point of time for calculating the previous asset price, and it does not specifically provide for the case of changes in the project

However, in light of the above-mentioned facts and the following circumstances known by the relevant laws, it is reasonable to interpret the "date of public announcement of project implementation" as the "date of public announcement of project implementation" as well as the "date of public announcement of project implementation" as the "date of public announcement of project implementation" as the "date of public announcement of project implementation" if

(A) Article 28(1) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that when a project implementer intends to implement a rearrangement project, he/she shall submit the articles of association, etc. and other documents prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport to the head of the relevant Si/Gun along with the project implementation plan and obtain authorization for the project implementation, and shall also apply where he/she intends to suspend or discontinue the rearrangement project after modifying the authorized contents. However, any modification to minor matters prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be reported to the head of the relevant Si/Gun. Accordingly, each subparagraph of Article 38 of the Urban Improvement Act provides for minor modifications that are sufficient by reporting to the head of the relevant Si/Gun. According to the contents, form, and purport, etc. of the relevant provisions of the Urban Improvement Act, unlike the case of changing the insignificant matters of the initial project implementation plan, where a new project implementation plan is formulated to substantially alter the main parts of the initial project implementation plan and obtain authorization from the head of the

(B) Furthermore, where the main part of a project implementation plan is substantially changed and a new project implementation plan is established based on the application for parcelling-out, the main part of the plan is also changed. In such a case, the original management and disposal plan becomes invalid unless there are special circumstances otherwise, and there is no legal interest in seeking nullification of the plan. In addition, even in the case of approval of the project implementation plan, where the main part is changed substantially, there is no subsequent act, such as expropriation procedure premised on the validity of the plan, or subsequent act, even if there is no change or replacement procedure, so if the initial project implementation plan does not affect the rights and obligations of the union members as of March 22, 2012, there is no legal interest in seeking nullification of the plan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Du6400, Mar. 22, 2012; 201Du30199, Nov. 28, 2013).

(C) It is unreasonable to interpret that, as seen above, as seen in the original judgment of the Supreme Court on various legal effects of the project implementation plan or the management and disposal plan where the main parts of the project implementation plan have been substantially modified, the previous assets should be evaluated as "the date of the first public announcement of the project implementation plan" under Article 48 (1) 4 of the Urban Improvement Act, in light of the fact that the accuracy of the previous assets evaluation has a significant significance in calculating the proportional ratio of the members, so long as it is interpreted only when there is a substantial change to be the same as that of the newly approved project implementation plan, or when there is a modification to be a new procedural requirement without actually changing the main parts thereof.

(D) As to the 'expenses of the association' which has a significant impact on the interests of the members of the association, the contents of the original project execution plan have been substantially modified. The project executor shall undergo a new public announcement of sale and the procedures for application for parcelling-out to the owners of the land, etc., and where the implementation plan is substantially modified to the extent that the initial project execution plan should undergo a new procedure for application for parcelling-out, the management and disposal plan should be formulated as well as a new plan. In such a case, the evaluation of the previous assets and the

(2) Whether the project implementation plan of this case has been substantially changed

The purpose of the precedents that held that the degree of substantial modification of the contents of the initial project implementation plan by 'sharing of expenses for a cooperative which has a significant impact on the interests of its members' is that the criteria for aggravated resolution are required in cases where the establishment of the project implementation plan is substantially modified to the extent that it has a significant impact on the interests of its members (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du13463, Aug. 23, 2012); the formulation and modification of the project implementation plan (including matters concerning the suspension or abolition of a rearrangement project under Article 28 (1) of the Urban Improvement Act, but excluding minor modifications under the proviso to Article 48 (1) of the same Act); the formulation and modification of the management and disposal plan (excluding minor modifications under the proviso to Article 48 (1) of the Urban Improvement Act) should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various individual circumstances, including the purpose of Article 24 (6) of the Urban Improvement Act (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012>

Based on the above legal principles, as to whether the project implementation plan of this case actually changes the main part of the initial project implementation plan of this case, the defendant union decided to establish the project implementation plan of this case where the general meeting of this case changes the total floor area, floor area ratio, building-to-land ratio, maximum number of buildings, number of parking spaces, and the number of planned households, etc. of the improvement project of this case. The defendant union ordered the approval of the project implementation plan of this case of this case of this case of October 19, 2012 by the application of the defendant union of this case. Since October 25, 2012, 200, 2000 after the new project implementation plan of this case had been implemented with the procedure for parcelling-out against members of this case of this case from January 26, 2013 to the new project implementation plan of this case of this case of this case of this case of which the new project implementation plan of this case did not actually change the project implementation plan of this case of this case of this case of 918 members other than the 994 members who did not apply for parcelling out.

Therefore, in the case of this case at least, the "date of public announcement as to whether the project implementation is implemented" under Article 48 (1) 4 of the Act shall be the date when the new project implementation is approved (i.e., the date of public announcement of the approval for the implementation of the project of this case). However, since the defendant association calculated the previous asset price according to the appraisal result as of the date of public announcement of the approval for the initial project implementation plan when formulating the management and disposal plan of this case, the above previous asset price calculation is unlawful in violation of Article 48 (1) 4 of the Act, and the management and disposal plan of this case established based on it is also unlawful. However, in light of the above project implementation plan of this case and management and disposal plan of this case, the above defects cannot be deemed as serious and obvious defects in the management and disposal plan of this case, and it is nothing more than the reason of revocation.

(3) Determination as to the assertion of ruling on assessment of the defendant union

(A) Ultimately, there is a defect constituting grounds for revocation of the instant management and disposal plan, and the Defendant Union against this case’s management and disposal plan is seeking a ruling on the grounds that the revocation of the instant management and disposal plan is not significantly suitable for the public welfare.

(B) In light of the provisions of Article 26 and the former part of Article 28(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, in an administrative litigation, when the court recognizes that the cancellation of an administrative disposition is not significantly appropriate for the public welfare even in a case where the plaintiff's request is deemed reasonable due to its illegality, the court may render a ruling to dismiss the plaintiff's request. In determining whether the plaintiff's request is not appropriate for the public welfare, the court shall compare and compare the necessity for cancellation and alteration of illegal and unfair administrative disposition and the situation against public welfare that may arise due to its cancellation and alteration and determine whether to apply it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu4629, Jul. 28, 1995; 95Nu4902, 4919, Nov. 11, 197).

On the other hand, the defect in the management and disposal plan of this case was erroneous in the point of time in which the calculation of the previous asset price was made as seen earlier, and as of the time of approval of the project implementation plan of this case, the total amount of the previous asset evaluation, the appraised value of the previous assets by the association members, the total expenses for the project execution, etc., if the properties of this case are newly appraised as of the time of approval of the project implementation plan of this case, and accordingly the rights of the association members calculated by multiplying the appraised value of the previous assets by the proportional rate to the appraised value of the previous assets by the association members, there seems to be room for further determination as to whether all the union members should apply

However, the evidence mentioned above, Eul's evidence, Eul's evidence Nos. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and Eul's evidence Nos. 11 (including the number of branches) can be combined with the whole purport of the arguments and arguments mentioned above, and the following facts are the progress and scale of the redevelopment project, the intention of many union members, the possibility of modifying the contents of the existing resolution, the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiffs, the rest of the union members and the general buyers, and the disadvantage that the plaintiffs can sustain. Considering that the main cause of the defect in the management and disposal system of this case is obvious that the defects in the above management and disposal system of this case is obviously erroneous in the execution of the business of the defendant union, it is recognized that the cancellation of the management and disposal plan of this case is a reason to render a judgment that it is not significantly appropriate for public welfare.

Therefore, although the management and disposal plan of this case is unlawful as seen in the above "3.c.4)(b)(2)", it is reasonable to dismiss the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation pursuant to Article 28 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

① As seen earlier, after obtaining authorization from the head of the Defendant’s office on November 16, 2005, the Defendant Union was subject to sale procedures, etc. according to the first project implementation plan until October 19, 2012, which was the authorization date for the establishment of the project implementation plan of the instant case, but it has obstructed redevelopment projects for a period of seven years due to the legal disputes and changes in the project plan of the Defendant Union and some members and the Defendant Union. On November 26, 2011, the Defendant Union obtained approval from 888 members at the general meeting of the instant case with the consent of this case from 1,241 members and concluded a sale contract with 94 members of the entire association on October 25, 2012, with the consent of 98 members of the instant management and disposal plan, reflecting the results of sale in lots at the general meeting of on October 26, 2013.

② Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the Defendant Union was judged that the initial project implementation plan was null and void after the date when approximately one year and five months elapsed from the date when the instant management and disposal plan was formulated (this Court 2013Nu3238). At that point, it would not be difficult for the Defendant Union to withdraw the follow-up procedures, such as invalidating the instant management and disposal plan as the invalidation of the original project implementation plan, and re-assigning the sale plan by taking the sale procedure again, based on the authorization date of the instant project implementation plan.

③ The Plaintiffs and their auxiliary intervenors are eligible for cash settlement who did not apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out or who did not conclude a contract for parcelling-out after filing an application for parcelling-out.

④ The Defendant Union completed a consultation on compensation with some of the persons subject to settlement of cash other than the Plaintiffs and their auxiliary intervenors, and filed an application for a ruling on expropriation with the Busan Regional Land Tribunal on October 13, 2014 for the said ruling on expropriation on December 8, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant Union deposited all the amount of the said ruling on expropriation on December 8, 2014 (see, e.g., the Plaintiffs and their auxiliary intervenors, who raised an objection against the said ruling on expropriation).

⑤ On November 14, 2014, according to the instant project implementation plan and the management and disposal plan, the Defendant Union concluded all sales contracts by selling 1,863 households among the 3,149 households in general. At present, the down payment and the first intermediate payment (as of April 15, 2015) are paid at the present time, and is expected to move in around February 2018. In addition, the Defendant Union selected a lot construction company as a contractor and implements the removal of the project site and the basic construction (as of the Defendant Union, the relocation rate is 89.59% and the removal rate is 68.91%, and the Plaintiffs asserted that the building reported to be destroyed as of December 16, 2014 is 69%).

(6) If the instant management and disposition plan is instituted on the ground of the defects in the instant management and disposition plan, the new management and disposition plan will have no significant changes in the basic contents of the previous management and disposition plan except for the assessed value of the previous assets appraised as of the time when the project implementation plan in this case is approved, proportional rates based on them, total asset assessment, total project costs, etc. However, if the instant management and disposition plan is revoked, it would be deemed that the overall legal relationship already established between the Defendant and all the members of the Defendant association and the entire members should be revised, and accordingly, it would be likely that the completion of the redevelopment project, which the majority of the members agreed to the instant project implementation plan and the management and disposition plan in this case and applied for parcelling-out, will be faced with the situation where the completion of the construction of the redevelopment project would be re-scheduled for a considerable period of time, and in particular, it would be probable that the general buyers of 1,800 households who entered into a contract with the Defendant Union, which is deemed a third party, will cause delay of the project and the subsequent legal dispute between the construction and the Si.

77) On the other hand, most of the plaintiffs and their assistant intervenors are more than the appraised value of their own assets, who selected the members of the association without applying for parcelling-out and cash settlement (see, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., the participants). However, as claimed by the plaintiffs, if the time of assessing the previous assets is delayed as of the time of approval of the project implementation plan of this case, the appraised value of the previous assets can be increased, and eventually, it is difficult to receive more liquidation from the liquidation procedure. However, in order to apply for parcelling-out, in light of the method of calculating the proportion as above, in light of the calculation of the ratio as above, the total expenses for the project are increased and the rate of return of the entire members is reduced or even if the estimated value is increased by individual factors in the case of some members, it is possible for the plaintiffs to have applied for parcelling-out due to the increase in the total expenses for the project. Ultimately, even if there is a higher possibility that the appraisal value of the previous assets is a higher possibility.

8 In addition, even if the management and disposition plan of this case is not revoked, the plaintiffs, who are the objects of cash liquidation, have the right to receive due compensation in the above acceptance decision and objection procedure, etc., and it is difficult to deem that they have special losses (the plaintiffs claim that "if the management and disposition plan of this case is revoked in the trial and the new procedure for selling lots is implemented in a legitimate manner, all the applicants shall apply for parcelling-out." However, as seen earlier, it is contradictory to the previous arguments that "the members could not apply for parcelling-out because the parcelling-out price of the union is high."

(9) On the other hand, as a part of the plaintiffs who renounced application for parcelling-out due to erroneous asset appraisal, they would be deprived of the opportunity to apply for parcelling-out again by maintaining the instant management and disposal plan. However, the members' contribution was determined based on the appraised value of the previous assets based on the first project implementation plan as of the date of approval of the initial project implementation plan before applying for parcelling-out, and the majority of the members completed the application for parcelling-out, and the plaintiffs had equal opportunity at the time of the application for parcelling-out. As long as the plaintiffs voluntarily waived this, it is difficult to

4. Conclusion

A. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for revocation of the administrative disposition plan of this case against the defendant head of the Gu is unlawful and thus dismissed.

B. Among the plaintiffs' requests, the part concerning the cancellation of the project implementation plan of this case against the defendant union and the part concerning the cancellation of the project implementation plan of this case against the head of the Gu is dismissed as all of the grounds for rejection.

C. Although the part concerning the plaintiffs' claim for cancellation of the management and disposition plan of this case among the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant association is illegal, accepting this part of the claim and revoking the management and disposition plan of this case is not significantly inappropriate for public welfare, and thus, this part of the claim is dismissed. However, the part of the claim is unlawful.

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court as to this conclusion is justifiable, and all appeals against the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges

Handy (Presiding Judge)

Lives and worship

Anti-Sickdong

Note tin

1) The amount of rights of each member = Value of the previous assets of each member ¡¿ proportional ratio.

* The proportion ratio = [total revenues - total expenses incurred in sale - total expenses) / total evaluation of previous assets] x 100

2) At present, project implementation authorization is granted to the National Assembly on December 6, 2013 and after the announcement of project implementation authorization, due to the delay in project procedures, etc.

In the case of a change, the issue that the appraisal is unable to be properly made on the basis of the first announcement date of project implementation authorization.

In order to solve the issue, where the authorization for the project is obtained three years after the date of public notice of authorization for the project implementation, the relevant change;

Act of Article 48(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Appraisal as of the date of public notice of authorization;

A bill is proposed (see evidence 10).

Site of separate sheet

List of Plaintiffs

i n

ti ti

Cdivator

10. R.

11. S.

12. T;

13. U;

14. V

15.W;

16. X

17. Y

18. Z;

19. AA

20. BB

22.D

23. E;

24.F

25. GG

26. H

27. JJ

28.K;

29. L;

30.M;

31.N

32.O

33. PP;

34. QQ

35.R

36.S

37.T;

38.U

5. V

40.W

XX 41.

42. Y

43. Z;

44. AA

45.B

List of Intervenors joining the Plaintiffs

1. CCC;

2.D;

3. E;

4. F; and

5. GG;

6. H;

J. JJ

8. KK;

9. L;

10.M;

11.N

12. 00

13. PP;

14. QQQ

15. RR

16.S

17.T;

18. UU.S.

19. v.

20.Ww

21. Commercialization;

22. Y;

23. Zz;

24. a

25. b.

26. c

27.D

32.j:

3.k

Relevant statutes

Article 1 (Purpose) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8785 of Dec. 21, 2007)

The purpose of this Act is to contribute to the improvement of urban environments and the elevation of quality of residential life by prescribing matters necessary for the planned rearrangement of areas which need restoring urban functions or whose residential functions are inferior, and for the efficient improvement of wornout and inferior buildings.

Article 2 (Definitions of Terms)

The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

2. The term "maintenance project" means a rearrangement zone to restore urban functions under the procedures prescribed by this Act;

A project falling under any of the following items, which maintains infrastructure for rearrangement, and improves or constructs buildings, such as housing:

c) Housing reconstruction projects implemented in a zone other than a rearrangement zone in the case of item (c):

include.

(b) Housing redevelopment project: Residential refund in the area where infrastructure for rearrangement is inferior and the worn-out and inferior buildings are concentrated;

Projects implemented to improve competition;

3. The term "old or inferior building" means a building falling under any of the following items:

(a) A building in danger of collapse or other accidents due to damage or partial destruction of the building;

(b) Buildings that meet the following requirements and are prescribed by the Presidential Decree:

(a) It shall be located in a place where the residential environment is inferior in light of the current utilization of surrounding land;

(2) Where a new building is built after removing the building, utility compared with the cost required.

for a significant increase is expected.

(c) Structureal defects, etc. caused by the impediments to urban scenery, functional defects of structures, defective works or deterioration;

Structures prescribed by the Presidential Decree, which are to be inevitably removed due to them;

Article 4 (Formulation of Rearrangement Plan and Designation of Rearrangement Zone)

(1) The head of a Si/Gun shall determine matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as concentration of old and inferior buildings within the extent consistent with the basic plan.

(1) A rearrangement plan including the following matters shall be formulated for an area meeting the requirements set forth in the

The opinions of the local council shall be made available to residents for more than one day, and the opinions of the local council shall be prepared by attaching them

An application for the designation of a zone shall be filed, and if it is necessary to modify the contents of the improvement plan, the same procedure shall be

An application for modified designation shall be filed through a modified designation: Provided, That where insignificant matters prescribed by Presidential Decree are modified.

shall not be required to undergo the procedures for residents' public inspection and hearing of opinions of the local council.

Article 17 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012);

(1) Article 7 (1), 8 (1) through (4), 13 (2), 14 (4), and 16 (1).

Note 3, Articles 26(3), 28(7) and 33(2) of the Agreement

8(4)7, Article 13(3), and Article 26(3).

(2) The certificate of personal seal impression shall be accompanied by written consent using the certificate of personal seal impression.

In such cases, where a certificate of seal imprint is submitted before, it may not be attached, but the certificate of seal imprint may not be attached.

Cases where it is deemed necessary to attach a certificate of seal imprint due to changes, etc.

of this chapter.

Article 24 (Convening of General Meeting and Matters for Resolution)

(3) The following matters shall undergo a resolution at a general meeting:

9-2. Formulation and amendment of a project implementation plan under Article 30 (or suspension of a rearrangement project under Article 28 (1);

10. Formulation of, and amendment to, a management and disposal plan under Article 48 (1) (including minor amendments under the proviso to Article 48 (1));

(5) The procedures, timing, methods, etc. of convening a general meeting shall be determined by the articles of incorporation: Provided, That a resolution by the general meeting shall be adopted.

In such cases, at least 10/100 of the members shall be present directly.

Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas

Article 24 (Convening of General Meeting and Matters for Resolution)

(3) The following matters shall undergo a resolution at a general meeting:

9-2. Formulation and amendment of a project implementation plan under Article 30 (or suspension of a rearrangement project under Article 28 (1);

10. Formulation of, and amendment to, a management and disposal plan under Article 48 (1) (including minor amendments under the proviso to Article 48 (1));

Any modification shall be excluded)

(5) Procedures for convening a general meeting, methods of resolution, etc. shall be determined by the articles of association:

10/100 of the members of the association (the establishment of a new general meeting, the project implementation plan and the management and disposal plan);

20/100 of the members of a general meeting prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as a general meeting subject to resolution on changes;

( means) more than one person must be present directly.

Article 28 (Authorization for Project Implementation)

(1) A project operator (including the cases of joint implementation under Article 8 (1) through (3) but the implementation of a project shall be included.

Where a person intends to implement a rearrangement project, Article 30 shall apply to the head of the Si/Gun

Articles of association, etc. and other Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport under the project implementation plan (hereinafter referred to as the "project implementation plan")

A person shall submit the documents prescribed by Ordinance to the head of the Si/Gun and obtain authorization for project implementation.

the same shall also apply to the modification, suspension, or discontinuation of a rearrangement project.

When intending to modify minor matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, it shall be reported to the head of Si/Gun.

section 3.

Article 46 (Public Notice of Sale in Lots and Application for Sale in Lots)

(1) A project implementer shall make a public announcement of an authorization for project implementation under Article 28 (4).

60 days from the date of concluding the contract with the contractor where the contractor has been selected after the commencement of the contract

Notice of the details of the reserve, period for application for parcelling-out and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree to the owners of lands

Matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the details of sites or structures subject to parcelling-out, in the relevant area.

A daily newspaper published shall be publicly announced. In such cases, the period for application for parcelling-out shall be 30 days from the date of notice

A project operator shall not exceed 60 days: Provided, That the project operator shall provide the management and disposal guidance pursuant to the provisions of Article 48 (1).

Where it is deemed that there is no impediment to the establishment of catch, the period for application for parcelling-out shall be extended within the extent of 20 days.

may be filed.

Article 47 (Measures for Persons Failing to File Application for Parcelling-Out)

(1) Where the owners of land, etc. falls under any of the following, a project implementer shall:

Land, buildings, or any of them within 150 days from the date classified under the procedures prescribed by Presidential Decree;

shall be liquidated in cash for any other rights.

1. An applicant for parcelling-out or an applicant for parcelling-out before the period for application for parcelling-out expires: Article 46;

The following day after the expiration date of the period for application for parcelling-out under paragraph (1).

2. A person excluded from objects to parcelling-out according to a management and disposal plan approved under Article 48: A management and disposal plan.

Day after the date of authorization;

(2) If a project operator fails to liquidate in cash within the period under paragraph (1), it shall be determined by articles of incorporation, etc.

interest shall be paid to the owners of the relevant land, etc. as required.

Article 48 (Authorization, etc. for Management and Disposal Plans)

(1) A project implementer (or a residential environment improvement project and a project implemented by the methods prescribed in Article 6 (1) 1 through 3.

Article 46 shall not apply to a project implementer for residential environment management under paragraph (5) of the same Article.

When the period for application for parcelling-out under Article 46 expires, the following shall be based on the current status of application for parcelling-out:

A management and disposal plan including the following matters shall be formulated, authorized by the head of the relevant Si/Gun, and managed and disposed;

The same shall also apply to the modification, suspension or discontinuation of a plan, and in such cases, the partnership shall Article 24 (3).

3 through 5 one month before the date on which the general meeting is held to resolve the matters referred to in subparagraph 10.

Matters to be received shall be notified in writing to each partner: Provided, That a minor director as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be notified.

When intending to modify a port, it shall be reported to the head of the Si/Gun.

4. Details of the previous land or buildings by person subject to parcelling-out and standards for the date of public announcement of authorization for project implementation;

section 48-2(2)(or, in the case of a structure removed pursuant to section 48-2(2) before the project implementation is authorized, the

Price based on the date of obtaining permission from the head of the Gun)

Addenda No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012>

Article 1 (Enforcement Date)

This Act shall enter into force six months after the date of its promulgation: Provided, That the amended provisions of Articles 4 (1), 4-3, 11 (5), 16-2 (1) through (3) and (5), 21 (4), 24 (5) through (7), 30-3, 32 (6), 36-2, 48 (2) 7 (c) and (5), 48-2, 77-4, 77-5, 81 (1), 84-2, and 84-3, Article 10 subparagraph 2 of the Addenda to the amended Act of Urban and Residential Environments Act (Act No. 9444) shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation, and the amended provisions of Article 16 (6) shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation, and the amended provisions of Article 16 (6) shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation.

Article 5 (Application to Resolutions, etc. of General Meeting of Association)

The amended provisions of paragraphs (5) through (7) of Article 24 shall apply from the date of resolution at the first general meeting convened after this Act enters into force.

(1) The Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21098, Oct. 29, 2008)

Of those)

Article 2 (Scope of Mano-Mano-Mano-Mano-Mano-Mali Buildings)

(1) "Determination by Presidential Decree" in subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

The term “building” means a building which falls under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. The area prescribed by the Municipal Ordinance of the relevant local government pursuant to Article 49 (1) of the Building Act; and

Urban planning facilities as referred to in subparagraph 7 of Article 2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act;

(hereinafter referred to as "urban planning facilities") on a site that becomes unusable due to the installation of such facilities, etc.

Buildings

2. A building in an area where smoke noise, etc. of a factory may cause danger and injury;

A building prescribed by the Ordinance of the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, or Do (hereinafter referred to as the "City/Do Ordinance").

3. Expenses incurred in repairing and reinforcinging the relevant building to use it for 40 years from the date of completion.

(2) The term “building as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” in subparagraph 3 (c) of Article 2 of the Act means the building falling under any of the following subparagraphs. In this case, the detailed standards for the building referred to in subparagraphs 2 and 3 may be prescribed by the Municipal Ordinance of a City/Do:

1. 20 years have passed since completion of construction works (where a City/Do municipal ordinance prescribes at least two training courses, such training shall be conducted);

Buildings

Basic urban planning under Article 19 (1) 8 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act;

a building that conflicts with the matters concerning the landscape of

3. Where the functions of the water supply, drainage, sewage, etc. of a building have been deteriorated, making it impossible to recover the functions thereof only by repair;

Buildings

Article 10 (Areas Subject to Formulation of Rearrangement Plans)

(1) Pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4 (1) of the Act, the head of a Si/Gun shall load the areas meeting the requirements in attached Table 1.

the maintenance plan under Article 4 (1) of the Act.

Article 48 (Liquidation Procedure for Persons Failing to File Application for ParcellingOut, etc.)

Where a project implementer liquidates in cash the land, buildings and other rights of the owners of land, etc. under Article 47 of the Act, the liquidation amount shall be calculated through consultation between the project implementer and the owners of land, etc. In such cases, he/she may consult on the basis of an amount calculated by taking an arithmetic mean of the values appraised by at least two persons engaged in appraisal and assessment of real estate under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act recommended by the head of a Si/Gun. [Attachment 1]

1. A rearrangement plan for a residential environment improvement project shall be formulated in any of the following areas:

(d) An area fixed on a scale of not less than 50 households or a population is excessively concentrated and based on the foundation;

An area where the residential environment is inferior due to poor snow maintenance and it is urgent to improve it;

2. A rearrangement plan for a housing redevelopment project shall be formulated for the areas falling under any of the following items:

In such cases, areas necessary for the construction of circulative housing under Article 35 (2) of the Act shall be included;

the corporation.

(a) Land which cannot function as a site by the maintenance of infrastructure for rearrangement or is under-land;

An area where the urban environment is likely to be significantly poor;

(b) In a case where a building cannot perform its functions because of its wornout and poorness, or its excessive concentration is made;

An area difficult to promote the rational utilization and value of land in the area;

5. The number of unauthorized buildings, the number of old and inferior buildings, the density of lakes, the shape of land, income level of residents, etc.;

If necessary, the requirements for the zone subject to the formulation of the rearrangement plan shall be within the scope prescribed in subparagraphs 1 through 4.

The Provincial Ordinance may be separately prescribed by Provincial Ordinance.

Enforcement Rules of the Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Act

Article 9 (Application for and Notice of Project Implementation Authorization)

(2) A project operator shall modify or maintain the details of authorization granted under Article 28 (1) of the Act.

Where suspension or discontinuation is intended, an application for authorization for the project (execution, change, suspension, or closure) in attached Form 6 shall be filed.

documents referred to in subparagraphs 1 and 5 of paragraph (1) and explanation of the reasons and details of the change, suspension or closure;

The documents shall be submitted to the head of Si/Gun (including submission by electronic document). A / Gu Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments in Busan Metropolitan City (Act No. 4025 of September 21, 2005) shall be amended by Ordinance No. 402

was determined before such determination)

Article 3 (Meno-Mano-Mano-Mano-Mali Buildings)

(2) Construction, the removal of which is inevitable for landscape and function under the latter part of Article 2 (2) of the Decree.

Water means a building falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. A kitchen, kitchen, or toilet shall not have one or more of the kitchens;

2. Where no indoor water or sewage system exists;

3. A thing that fails to be equipped with, or is unable to operate, a fixed heating system.

4. Facilities of extremely poor quality for soundproof, ventilation, or lighting;

Article 4 (Areas Subject to Formulation of Improvement Plans)

The requirements for each zone subject to the establishment of maintenance plans under subparagraph 5 of attached Table 1 related to Article 10 (1) of the Decree shall be as follows:

2. For a housing redevelopment project zone, it means the zone falling under any of the following items:

(a) An area in which the number of old and inferior buildings is at least 40 percent of the total number of buildings;

(b) An area where the housing density is 50 or more;

(c) A house in which the length of a road of less than four meters wide is not less than 30 percent of the total length of a road or adjacent thereto;

An area where the Do rate is not more than 40 percent;

(d) The number of parcels that cannot function as a building site, or the number of parcels that are illegal or intangible, or that are intangible, shall be 40 percent;

More than the area

(e) Areas required for constructing the circulative housing under Article 35 (2) of the Act;

(f) Regions falling under subparagraph 1 (f) through (h); and

The articles of association of the Housing Redevelopment Project Association

Article 21 (Resolution Method of General Meeting)

(1) A general meeting shall constitute with attendance of a majority of members, except as otherwise expressly provided for in the Act and this articles of incorporation

Resolution with the concurrent vote of the majority of the present members.

(2) Members of a cooperative may exercise their voting rights in writing or through an agent falling under any subparagraph of Article 10 (2).

(1) In case of a written event, it shall be deemed as attendance under paragraph (1);

(3) If any member attends a meeting in writing under paragraph (2), he/she shall present his/her opinion on the contents of the agenda.

The Si shall ensure that the association arrives before the general meeting is held.

(4) In cases where members desire to attend as their agents pursuant to paragraph (2), the members shall affix their seal imprints or associations.

a representative system shall be prepared and submitted to the Union with the seal of the employee registered at the meeting.

심급 사건

-부산지방법원 2013.11.22.선고 2013구합254

부산고등법원 2015.4.15.선고 2013누3221

-대법원 2016.2.18.선고 2015두2048

참조조문