(영문) 부산고등법원 2013.8.23.선고 2013누574 판결

On December 22, 2011, the defendant revoked the disposition of approval for a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association's establishment promotion committee of the housing redevelopment and consolidation project association in the 3-dong district.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 11, 2001, the Mayor of Busan Metropolitan City publicly announced the master plan for redevelopment in accordance with the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 6852 of Dec. 30, 2002), and designated the Busan Metropolitan City as the redevelopment master plan for housing redevelopment. As the Act on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments was enacted and implemented, the above master plan for redevelopment was deemed as the master plan under the above Act pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Addenda.

B. The promotion committee for the establishment of the housing redevelopment project partnership in the e-dong 3 district (hereinafter referred to as the "promotion committee of this case") constituted the association for the implementation of the housing redevelopment project in the above basic housing redevelopment plan area. The defendant approved the promotion committee of this case on December 30, 2003.

C. On September 12, 2007, the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor designated and publicly announced 160,730 square meters of the said zone to be rearranged as a housing redevelopment improvement zone (hereinafter “instant improvement project zone”).

D. On December 1, 2007, the instant promotion committee held an inaugural general meeting (hereinafter referred to as the “previous inaugural general meeting”) and a temporary resident general meeting (hereinafter referred to as the “previous resident general meeting”) on August 28, 2008, filed an application for authorization for the establishment of a housing redevelopment project association with the Defendant, and was withdrawn from the application or returned from the Defendant.

E. After May 17, 201, the instant promotion committee held an inaugural general meeting (hereinafter referred to as “instant inaugural general meeting”) again on May 17, 201, and on September 9, 2011, filed an application with the Defendant for authorization for establishment of a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association (hereinafter referred to as “application for authorization of this case”) along with a written consent of establishment submitted by the owners of land, etc. within the instant improvement project zone.

F. On December 22, 2011, the Defendant approved the establishment of the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) on the ground that: (a) 804 owners of the land, etc. in the instant rearrangement project zone, among 1,054 owners of the land, etc. (the consent rate of 76.28%); and (b) 3/4 or more of the owners of soil, etc. under Article 16(1) 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; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”); and (c) Inasmuch as the Defendant satisfied the requirements for the consent of 3/4 or more owners of land, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition

G. The Plaintiffs are owners of land, etc. who own land within the instant rearrangement project zone.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 24, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiffs

The instant disposition was revoked on the ground that it did not meet the requirements for authorization to establish a legitimate inaugural general meeting, with the consent of at least 3/4 of the owners of land, etc. as follows.

(1) 582 copies of a written consent for establishing an association under the Gu written consent.

In Chapter 804 of the written consent for establishing an association of the owner of land, etc. submitted by the instant promotion committee to the Defendant, the letter of consent under attached Form 3-2 and Article 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Do Correction Expenses Act (attached Form 4-2) (hereinafter referred to as the "Gu letter of consent") as amended on December 17, 2008 is mixed with the letter of consent under attached Form 3-2, which is publicly notified by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on June 30, 2003.

However, according to Article 26(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Article 2 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Act as amended on December 17, 2008, the basis for applying for authorization to establish an association after December 17, 2008 shall be subject to the consent by the new consent. Thus, Chapter 582 of the former consent does not meet the requirements and is null and void.

(2) A written consent for the establishment of an association, in which necessary matters, such as the design outline of a new building, are vacant.

The instant promotion committee submitted a written consent to establish an association with the necessary matters, such as the outline of the design of the new building, from the initial owners of the land, etc., and submitted the written consent to enter the said public column en bloc, and supplement the public disturbance through the previous inaugural general meeting and the residents' general meeting, but there was no consent of the 12 consenters in the attached Form 10 written consent to supplement the public column. Therefore, the above written consent is null and void.

In addition, the promotion committee of this case, after the previous general meeting of the residents which decided to enter the public column of the written consent in a lump sum, submitted the written consent of the establishment of the association from 20 persons, such as I, in the public column, and supplement the public column of the above written consent in a lump sum without a separate general meeting resolution or delegation. Thus, the above written consent is also null and void.

(3) 35 persons withdrawing consent to establish an association.

The 35 written consent of the owners of land, etc. submitted to the Defendant by the instant promotion committee, on which the 35 persons who withdrawn consent was written, among the written consent for the establishment of the association by the owners of land, etc., the 35 persons written consent form, including the outline of the design of a new building, was prepared, and without any delegation, did not appear voluntarily by the said promotion committee. Even if the right to supplement the disturbance was delegated, they should withdraw delegation of the right to supplement the public disturbance or withdraw the consent of the establishment of the association through one to three times after the submission of the written consent, so the above 35 written consent form

(4) An altered written consent for establishing an association shall be at least 54 copies.

The committee of promotion of this case, upon receiving written consent for establishing an association from the owners of land, etc., states the necessary matters to be entered in the form of disturbance. Among them, 54 written consent from the 54 persons who have altered the attached Form 3, was erroneously stated, the committee of promotion of this case arbitrarily revised the written consent from the 54 persons who have altered the attached Form 3, and submitted it to the defendant without obtaining a seal from the 54 persons who have affixed it. Such written consent

(5) Written consent for establishing a requisitioned association before designating an improvement zone.

Of the written consent for establishing an association of the owners of land, etc. submitted by the instant committee to the Defendant, Chapter 291 was drafted on September 12, 2007 by setting the project area of 166,00 meters prior to the designation of a rearrangement zone and did not demand a new written consent according to the modified project outline. As such, Chapter 291 of the said written consent is null and void.

Furthermore, F, G, and H submitted a written consent to establish an association before the designation of the rearrangement zone, but transferred the ownership of the land to another person, and the above written consent submitted by a person who lost ownership before the designation of the rearrangement zone is invalid in three parts.

(6) A written consent to establish an association submitted without appointing a representative.

In the case of the land on which superficies is established, the owner of the land and one person representing the superficies shall submit a written consent for the establishment of the association, but the written consent of nine persons indicated in the attached Table 4 with superficies shall be excluded from the person with superficies, and the said written consent shall be null and void in Chapter 9.

In addition, the Busan High TTT-T-based building was jointly owned by J and K, and only one co-owner submitted a written consent, without appointing its representative, so the above written consent is invalid even in one chapter of the above written consent.

(7) Calculation of the number of consenters to State and public land.

In rendering the disposition of this case, the defendant calculated the number of landowners and the number of consenters for each six administrative agencies, but the state-owned and public land shall be calculated as one owner for each state-owned and local autonomous body.

In addition, since the number of owners of land, etc. and the number of consenters for each management agency are calculated, the number of consenters for each management agency, and the six management agencies, only after May 17, 201, the inaugural general meeting date, submitted a written consent to establish an association, or omitted a certificate of personal seal impression, and did not submit a written consent, the above written consent should be excluded from the number of consenters.

(8) 11 persons who consent to establish an association or have no written consent or certificate of personal seal impression.

Among the owners of land, etc. calculated by the defendant as the consent of the establishment of the association, 11 persons such as L et al. do not have the intent and certificate of personal seal impression, so the above 11 persons must be excluded from

(9) Three copies of written consent to establish an association in the name of the deceased.

The written consent of M, N, andO among the written consent for establishing an association of the owners of land, etc. submitted by the instant promotion committee to the Defendant is the written consent of the deceased person, and there is no other inheritor’s consent to appoint a representative and establish an association. Therefore, Chapter Three of the above written consent

(1) A written consent for establishing an association with a forged certificate of personal seal impression.

Since the consent letter of the association establishment of the owner of the land, etc. submitted by the instant promotion committee to the Defendant was forged and attached, one copy of the above consent letter is null and void.

(1) Seven copies of a written consent for the establishment of an association, the amount of which is different or unclear.

Part III of written consent in the name of P, Q, and R among written consent for establishing an association by the owner of the land, etc. submitted by the instant promotion committee to the Defendant states the amount of the necessary construction cost and other project cost differently from that of other written consents. Since the said amount is unclear, 14 written consents including S, etc., 17 copies of the said written consent must be excluded from the number of consenters.

(2) A written consent for establishing an association submitted or overlapped by non-owner of land, etc.

The owner of Busan Shipping Daegu UUUUU land was changed from T to U on the ground of donation, and only one second-story building owned by U on the ground of the above land exists on the ground of the gift, but the defendant calculated T and U as all consenterss, and T should be excluded from the number of owners of land, etc. and the number of consenterss.

And since V does not own land, etc. in the instant rearrangement project zone, the consent form in V is invalid.

In addition, although the defendant submitted two copies of written consent of the establishment of W in the name of the same person, it should be excluded from the number of consenters, one of them should be excluded from the number of consenters.

(3) A consent to establish a requisitioned association after the public announcement date of the inaugural general meeting of this case

Since 12 written consent of the owners of land, etc. submitted to the Defendant by the committee for promotion of this case was drafted between the date of public announcement of the inaugural general meeting of this case and the date of general meeting, excluding the above 12 persons, the general meeting of this case is held by public announcement of the consent rate of 75% of the owners of land, etc. without meeting the above 12 persons, and thus, the general meeting of this case is null and void or the above consent rate of 12 shall

In addition, X, Y, and Z caused the establishment of the association after the opening of the inaugural general meeting in this case, so the above written consent should be excluded from the number of consenters.

(1) Validity of written consent to establish an association due to rejection of an alteration of an improvement zone at the former resident general meeting.

The committee of promotion of this case, which is a zone to be rearranged, consisting of 229 square meters and 166,000 square meters in Busan High-dong, Busan High-dong, Busan High-dong, which is a zone to be rearranged, was designated as a rearrangement zone. On September 12, 2007, the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor designated 160,730 meters as a rearrangement zone, which was proposed but rejected the agenda for the alteration of the rearrangement zone at the previous residents' general meeting on August 28, 2008. Therefore, the project area is 16,000 meters as in the previous area, and the establishment agreement of the association of this case, which is submitted to the Defendant by the Jinjin-dong, the project area is stated as 160,730 square meters in the area of the project.

Furthermore, 22 persons, including AA, are owners of land, etc. who are incorporated into the project area due to the designation of the above rearrangement zone, and as such, the previous residents' general meeting rejected the amendment agenda, the consent letter of the above 22 Chapter should be excluded from the number of consenters.

2) Defendant and Intervenor

Inasmuch as the requirements for approving establishment of at least 3/4 of the owners of land, etc. at the time of the instant disposition were met, the said disposition is lawful. Even if the instant disposition is unlawful, revocation of the instant disposition by 11 owners of land, etc., such as submitting an additional written consent to establish an association during the course of litigation, should be determined as inappropriate for public welfare.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Table 5 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Invalidity of the consent to establish an association under the old written consent

A) Article 26(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21171, Dec. 17, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas") provides that the consent of the owners of lands, etc. under Article 16(1) through (3) of the Act shall be obtained by means of obtaining the consent specified in the consent form, stating the following matters. Each subparagraph of the same Article provides that the outline of the design of a building to be constructed "the matters to be indicated in the consent form, the outline of the cost required for the removal and new construction of the building, the matters concerning the apportionment of the said cost (if the design outline is changed, the criteria for sharing the cost), the matters concerning the ownership after completion of the project, and the articles of association of the association.

However, as the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 21171 on December 17, 2008, Article 26(1) provides that "the consent of the owners of land, etc. under Article 16(1) through (3) of the Act shall be obtained in accordance with the consent form prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs," and the main sentence of Article 16(2) provides that "a consent form under paragraph (1) of the same Article shall include the following matters"; each subparagraph of the same Article provides that "the outline of the design of a building to be constructed, the estimated amount required for the removal and new construction of the building, the standards for sharing the above expenses, the matters concerning ownership after completion of the project, and the articles of association".

On the other hand, Article 2 of the Addenda to the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 506, Aug. 2, 2012) provides that "the provision of Article 26 (1) of the Addenda to the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 506, Aug. 2, 2012) shall apply to the establishment of the association after December 17, 2008."

B) The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of Gap's health room return to the instant case, Gap's evidence Nos. 2,8, 11, 17, 27, 29, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, and 13.

① From around December 2003 to December 16, 2008, the instant promotion committee demanded consent to establish an association in accordance with the old consent form stipulated in the public notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. The Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas was amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 79 on December 17, 2008, and demanded consent form from owners of land, etc. in accordance with the new

1 ② The new and old written consent is the same as the design outline of the new building and the estimated amount of the cost of removal and construction of the new building, and the main contents of the cost sharing and the ownership attribution are the same.

③ However, the new written consent is only a specific example of calculating the proportional ratio, unlike the old written consent, by calculating the contribution by a person subject to parcelling-out, among the matters to be borne by him/her.

④ On December 18, 2008, after the amendment of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Improvement Act, the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs notified on the premise that the new and old written consent is identical to each other’s heads of each branch, the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, on the premise that the new and old written consent is identical.

C) According to the above facts, although the new and old written consent is practically the same, it is merely merely that the new written consent contains more specific matters concerning the apportionment of expenses, and even if the Gu written consent does not include the example of the "Methods for estimating the shares of each person subject to the sale", it cannot be deemed that there is no possibility of being delayed regarding the standard for bearing the expenses.

In addition, as seen earlier, the instant promotion committee has been urged from 2003 to 582 owners of the land, etc. in the instant maintenance business zone from 203 to 582, and if the written consent should be urged again in accordance with the new written consent form without any particular difference, it is nothing more than imposing enormous costs and efforts on the original council of the instant promotion.

In full view of these circumstances, it is legitimate that the Defendant calculated the number of consenters by aggregating the new and old written consent of which the content is substantially identical, and the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is not acceptable.

2) Voluntary assertion of the column of the written consent, such as the design outline of the new building

A) Relevant legal principles

Matters concerning estimated amounts of the design outlines of buildings, removal of structures, and new construction costs of an association establishment consent agreement shall be based on the apportionment of expenses that are the remainder to be stated therein, and matters concerning the attribution of ownership after completion of the project, which are the basis for determining whether the owners of land, etc. consent thereto, and shall address the essential contents of consent forms. As such, if supplementation is made without delegation of authority to supplement the details, without any delegation of authority to supplement them, such stipulation cannot be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du21218, Dec. 13, 2012).

[Therefore, since all necessary re-matters are written in the written consent of the establishment of the association submitted by the promotion committee of this case to the defendant, and since the defendant examined whether the seal affixed to the certificate of the personal seal impression and written consent are identical, the defendant and the principal of the intervenor cannot accept the disposition of this case in accordance with the above legal principles.]

Meanwhile, it is presumed that a private document was established at the time when the signature, seal, or seal of the person or his agent was affixed. Thus, in cases where it is recognized that the person preparing the private document was signed, sealed, or stamped on the private document in question, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established unless there are other special circumstances, and in cases where the authenticity of the seal portion, etc. is recognized, the document is presumed to have been signed, sealed, or stamped, unless there are other special circumstances, and unless there are other special circumstances, the document is deemed to have been signed, sealed, or stamped at the time of completion of the entire document, and the document is deemed to have been signed, sealed, or sealed by the person signing the document in question. Thus, in order to presume the authenticity of the document as the completion document, there is a need for reasonable grounds and indirect counter-proof, etc. supporting this (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da11590 delivered on October 14, 194).

In addition, if the presumption of the authenticity as a completion document is reversed and it is proved that the person other than the person who prepared the blank document or an unsatisfy part was supplemented by the legitimate authority, the person who asserts the formation of the document or the person who submitted the document bears the burden of proof (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da11406, Apr. 11, 2003).

[Therefore, even in the case of blank documents, if the person who signed the blank papers affixed the seal, the intervenor's assertion that the person who signed the blank paper is presumed to have the intention to supplement the blank paper shall not be received in light of the above legal principles.

B) 12 written consent to establish an association in attached Form 1.

(1) Based on the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in this case’s health room, Gap’s evidence Nos. 2, 8, 12, 14, 32, Eul’s evidence Nos. 47, 85, 88, 88, 9, 101, and 102, it can be acknowledged as follows.

① Since 2003 to 2007, the instant promotion committee failed to confirm “the outline of the design of a new building, the estimated cost of removal of a building, and the estimated cost of new construction” due to the issue of designation of a rearrangement zone and the preparation of the articles of association. As such, from the owners of land, etc. in the instant improvement project zone, the committee urged the consent of establishing an association by disturbing the said matters.

② After that, the instant promotion committee held the previous inaugural general meeting on December 1, 2007 and the end residents’ general meeting on August 28, 2008 to supplement all the parts in the official column among the written consent for the establishment of the association, each of which was “a case of delegation of the written consent for the establishment of the association,” and thereafter, entered each of which was “a case of delegation of the written consent for the establishment of the association,” as a whole, in the official column of the written consent for the establishment of the association

③ As a result, the consent letter of the establishment completed at the time was different from the parts supplemented in the column of “estimated the design outline of the new construction building, the estimated cost of removal of the building, and the estimated cost of new construction”. The Defendant, on December 11, 2008, rejected the application for authorization for establishment of the instant promotion committee on the ground that only the consenters who agreed to the previous inaugural general meeting and the resolution of the residents’ general meeting is valid, and the statutory consent rate for establishment falls short of the statutory consent rate for establishment.

④ Meanwhile, from around 2003 to 2007, the instant promotion committee requested the letter of consent by stating the phrase “the outline of the new construction building, and the estimated amount of the cost of removing and constructing new buildings” as public disturbance, and then supplemented the above public disturbance, the owners of land, etc. shall include 12 persons who agreed to the letter of consent in attached Form 1.

⑤ However, the number 1 to 3, 5 to 7, 9, and 10 of the attached Form 1 consent form among them were eight members of the same Council. The previous inaugural general meeting and the residents’ general meeting approved the agenda items to be delegated to the establishment of the association.

According to the above facts, four written consent of the 4, 8, 11, and 12 of the annexed 1 blank consent (B,CC, D, and G) shall be excluded from the number of consenters, since the Promotion Committee of this case voluntarily supplemented the public disturbance, and its effectiveness cannot be recognized. (Reduction of the number of consenters)

(2) As to this, the defendant and the intervenor explained and notified the above four consenters of the consent, such as the design outline of the new building, the removal of the building, the estimated cost of new construction, etc. at the time of demanding the consent, and they become sufficiently aware of the consent by the above consenters. ② The consent also states that "the consent to implement a new construction project, such as the project plan (which can be changed according to the subsequent project plan) prepared by the Promotion Committee for the Establishment of the Housing Redevelopment Project in the friendly Three Zone and the project plan (which can be changed according to the subsequent project plan)", "the consent to the establishment of the association and the maintenance project can be changed according to the project implementation authorization, the contract contents with the contractor, and the expenditure of the project. If it is necessary to revise the contents or adjust liquidation money of the association members, etc., it shall be changed to the contents decided by the general meeting, and it shall be deemed that the consent is substituted for the original consent without submitting a separate consent on the matters decided at the general meeting of the association members."

However, solely on the grounds of the above argument, it cannot be deemed valid for the committee of promoters to supplement the disturbance of the requisite matters to be stated without an individual delegation. ② The contents of the above written consent are merely the purport of consenting to the subsequent project plan without submitting a separate written consent, even if some of the written consent was modified on the premise that the written consent was not the purpose of prior consent to supplement the public disturbance in the future. It is difficult to determine that the above four consenters delegated the right to supplement the public disturbance to the committee of promoters of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, each of the above arguments by the defendant and the intervenor cannot be accepted.

C) 20 copies of the written consent of the establishment of the association after the previous residents' general meeting

As seen earlier, the committee of this case requested the consent of the establishment of a new building in the blank, with the intention of "estimated the design outline of the new building, the estimated cost of removal of the building, and the estimated cost of new construction" as a result of the designation of the rearrangement zone and the preparation of the articles of association. On December 1, 2007, the committee of this case passed a resolution to supplement the public peace en bloc by holding the previous inaugural general meeting and the previous resident general meeting on August 28, 2008. However, the committee of this case did not find all the circumstances where the committee of this case was able to open the general meeting on the agenda of supplementation of the public disturbance.

In addition, if Gap's evidence Nos. 2 and 29 showed the overall purport of the pleadings, the circumstances such as the future can be recognized.

① Since the previous inaugural general meeting and resolution of the residents’ general meeting set necessary descriptions, such as the outline of design of new buildings to be entered in the written consent of the establishment of the association, there is no need for the committee of this case to obtain written consent for the establishment of the association in a disturbance.

(2) Many of the 20 pages of written consent for the establishment of an association after the previous residents' general meeting are deemed to have the same personal data column and the design outline of a new building.

위와 같은 사정들을 종합해 보면, 갑 제2, 29호증의 각 일부 기재만으로는 이 사건 추진위원회가 2008. 8. 28. 이후에도 토지등소유자인 I, EE, FF, GG, HH, II, JJ, KK, LL , MM, NN, OO, PP, QQ, RR, SS , TT, UU, VV, WW 등 20명으로부터 '신축건 축물의 설계개요, 건축물의 철거 및 신축비용 개산액'란을 공란으로 하여 동의서를 징 구하였다고 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

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

3) The assertion against 35 persons withdrawing consent

A) The Plaintiffs asserted that the necessary entry, such as the outline of a new building, was filled with a blank space, without any delegation, with respect to the 35 written consent form written in the attached Form 2 revocation letter, and that there was a supplement of the disturbance by the committee of the instant Film Council without any delegation. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs will first look at this issue.

As seen earlier, since from around 2003 to 2007, the committee of promotion of this case requested the consent of establishing an association by disturbing the above matters from the owners of land, etc. located in the non-business zone of this case, since "the design outline of a new construction axis, the removal of a building, and the estimated amount of the cost of new construction" was not determined. On December 1, 2007, the previous inaugural general meeting and the previous resident's general meeting on August 28, 2008 entered the official column of the written consent requested until the time when the resolution of the previous resident's general meeting was passed.

In addition, according to Gap evidence Nos. 8, 14, 32, Eul evidence Nos. 90 through 92, 94, 101, and 103, the promotion committee of this case requested the letter of consent from 2003 to 2007, "the estimated amount of expenses for the removal of new construction structures," and "the estimated amount of expenses for the removal and construction of new structures" shall be the public column, and the owners of lands, etc. who supplement the above public disturbance shall include 35 persons as stated in the revocation of consent Nos. 1, 4 through 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 through 19, 21 through 25, 28 through 35, it can be acknowledged that the former inaugural general meeting and the residents' general meeting have consented to the delegation of the matters on the establishment of the association.

According to the above facts, the letter of consent of 8 of 2, 3, 8, 11, 13, 20, 26, 27, 8 of 27 (B, XX,CC, Y, Z, AAA, BB, and CCC) shall not be valid since the promotion committee of this case voluntarily supplement the public disturbance, and the above 8 persons shall be excluded from the number of consenters (However, if two persons (B, CC) overlapping with the person who was judged invalid above are excluded, the number of consenters shall be reduced by 6).

B) As to the above, the defendant and the intervenor explained and notified about the content of the consent, such as ① the design outline of the new building, the estimated cost of removal of the building, and the estimated cost of new construction, to the above six consenters at the time of demanding the consent. ② According to the contents of the consent, the above six consenters shall be deemed to have delegated the committee of this case with the authority to supplement the disturbance in advance. ③ The above six consenters shall be deemed to have delegated the committee of this case with the authority to supplement the disturbance. ③ Since the above six consenters did not raise any objection against the outline of the construction of the new building, the construction of the new building, the estimated cost of removal of the building, and the estimated cost of new construction before applying for the approval of this case, they shall be deemed to have delegated the authority to supplement the public disturbance as well.

C) Meanwhile, the plaintiffs asserted that 35 persons stated in the separate sheet 2 shall have withdrawn delegation of the right to supplement public disturbance or withdrawn consent from the establishment of the association through one to three times after the submission of the written consent. However, as examined later, the number of consenters decreased only by six persons, the requirement of consent necessary for the establishment of the association is not satisfied, and thus, they shall not be examined further.

(iv) argument on the modified written consent 54

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the evidence No. 27, 37, 39, Eul evidence No. 27, and witness Kim Jong-soo of the first instance court, the facts that the promotion committee of this case erases part of the "design outline of the new construction building" or "calculated cost of removal and new construction of the building" among the 54 written consent of the establishment of the 54 written consent of the 3rd party in the attached Form No. 3 written consent, or re-enters it as the revised tape.

However, in light of the above evidence and the purport of the body prior to the pleadings in each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 36, 41 through 49, and 63 through 81, if there is an obvious clerical error in the number in the statement of the current status of the building or the cost of removal, the committee of promotion of this case may recognize the fact that the contents of the modified consent are deleted and re-written.

According to the above facts of recognition, the promotion committee of this case merely makes any clerical error in the partnership agreement, and it does not seem to be contrary to the intention of the person who has signed each written consent as specified in the attached Table 3. Thus, even if it was modified without the document processing rules of the promotion committee of this case, such written consent cannot be deemed null and void.

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

5) Claim for consent to establish a requisitioned association before the designation of the rearrangement zone

A) Part 291 of the Written Consent drafted before the designation of the rearrangement zone

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 8, 17, 18, and 27, it can be recognized that the committee of promotion of this case has received a considerable number of written consent for establishing an association from the owners of land, etc. before the designation of the improvement zone on September 12, 2007.

However, unlike Article 13(2) of the former Urban Improvement Act (amended by Act No. 9444 of Feb. 6, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the "former Urban Improvement Act"), which applies to the approval of the committee of promotion of this case, Article 13(2) of the former Urban Improvement Act (amended by Act No. 9444 of Feb. 6, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the "former Urban Improvement Act"), where a person, other than the head of a Si/Gun or the Korea Housing Corporation, intends to implement a rearrangement project, an association consisting of owners of land, etc. shall be established, and where he/she intends to establish the said association, he/she shall organize an association establishment promotion committee with the consent of a majority of owners of land, etc. and obtain the approval of

Therefore, even if the approval disposition was taken against the promotion committee composed of the majority consent of the owners of the land, etc. determined by the improvement zone prior to the public announcement of the designation of the improvement zone, it cannot be said that the defects of the disposition are serious or obvious.

In addition, Article 14 (1) 4 and 5 of the former Act and Article 22 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Etc. provide that the Promotion Committee shall perform the preparation work to obtain authorization for the establishment of the association and the request for written consent for the establishment of the association from the owners of the land, etc.

Furthermore, as seen in paragraph (1) above, the area of the rearrangement zone was 166,00 square meters at the time of approval by the committee of promotion, and the area was reduced to 160,730 square meters as a rearrangement zone designation. However, the actual project area designated as the rearrangement zone has been changed to the extent that it is impossible to recognize the same as the project area planned at the time when the committee of promotion requested consent, or there is no circumstance to deem that the 291 letter of consent claimed by the Plaintiff was drafted from the owners of lands outside the rearrangement zone.

In full view of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to see that the consent letter that the promotion committee of this case received from the owners of land before the designation of the rearrangement zone also has the validity as the consent to the formation of the redevelopment project association. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

B) Three copies of the written consent that lost ownership before designating the rearrangement zone.

Article 28 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act provides that "a person who acquires land or a building from a person who has consented to the establishment of a promotion committee or an association shall be deemed to have been established by the promotion committee or the association."

However, as seen earlier, the consent form drafted before the designation of the rearrangement zone is valid, and even if F, G, and H submitted the consent form before the designation of the rearrangement zone and transferred the ownership of land and buildings to another person, it shall be deemed that the person who acquired the relevant land or building also consented to the establishment of the association. As such, F, G, and H’s consent form is still effective. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ assertion on this part is without merit.

6) Claim for consent to establish an association without appointing a representative

A) Relevant provisions

Article 2 subparagraph 9 (a) of the Act provides that "the owner of a plot of land or structure located in a rearrangement zone shall be the owner or superficies of the land or structure located in the rearrangement zone, and Article 17 (2) of the Act, Article 28 (1) 1 (a) and (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Urban Improvement (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24007, Jul. 31, 2012; hereinafter referred to as "Enforcement Decree of the Act on Urban Improvement") shall be calculated as the owner of a plot of land or structure if the land or structure falls under the co-ownership of several persons with respect to the calculation criteria for consent of the owner of a plot of land or structure in a housing redevelopment project, one representative of the number shall be calculated as the owner of the land and one representative of the superficies if superficies is established on the land.

B) The superficiary part

(1) In full view of the purport of the body before the pleadings, the following facts may be acknowledged in the evidence Nos. 9, 14, 19, and Nos. 95 through 98, 104, and 107.

① At the time of the instant disposition, superficies was established on each land indicated with superficies attached to attached Table 4.

② However, each owner listed in [Attachment 4] Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 submitted a written consent to establish the association to the instant promotion committee solely without appointing a representative partner between the person with superficies and the person with superficies for each year.

③ Meanwhile, on April 13, 2006, the Plaintiff, the owner of [Attachment 4] No. 2, as indicated in [Attachment 4, submitted a written consent to the Promotion Committee of this case on March 29, 2010, and the owner of the [Attachment 6], as indicated in the same No. 6, submitted a written consent on April 28, 2006, and offered superficies to the superficiary on the relevant land on October 1, 2007, and the Plaintiff, the owner of [Attachment 7] as indicated in the same No. 7] submitted a written consent on April 15, 2006, and established a superficies on each of the relevant land on December 7, 2009.

④ The Defendant: (a) deemed that the written consent for the establishment of an association submitted by each owner with respect to each piece of land indicated on annexed superficies 4 is valid; (b) included it in the number of consenters, and issued the instant

(2) According to the above provisions, if superficies are established on the land, the tenant of the land and one person representing the person with superficies shall be calculated as the owner of the land. According to the above facts, the owners listed in the annexed Table 4 Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 of the annexed Table No. 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9 of the annexed Table No. 4 have sold the association establishment consent without obtaining the consent of the representative partner from the business district concerned, and six copies of the consent of the above owners (DD, EE, FF, GG, H, H, and II) of the consent of the above owners shall be excluded from the number of consenters (a decrease of six consenters).

(3) As to this, the Defendant and the Intervenor asserted that all of them do not constitute a case in which a representative member should be appointed, since they are financial institutions which created superficies at the same time as the establishment of the right to collateral security to secure a claim against the landowner.

However, Article 28 (1) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act does not stipulate that the appointment of a person with superficies who is a financial institution for the purpose of securing bonds is an exception to the appointment.

In addition, Article 17(1) of the Urban Improvement Act requires the consent of the owner of a plot of land, etc. to establish a redevelopment association in writing, and the purport of recording the written consent at the time of applying for authorization to establish a redevelopment association is to prevent disputes among related persons who may arise regarding the consent by clarifying the consent of the owner of a plot of land, etc., and to prevent the administrative agency from taking unnecessary administrative power to confirm whether the consent is obtained by examining whether the consent requirement is met only with the consent submitted at the time of applying for authorization to establish a redevelopment association (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du4845, Jan. 28, 2010). In interpreting that the right to secure a claim is an exception to appointment of the representative of the owner of a plot of land, etc., if the consent of the owner of a plot of land, etc., who is not a representative, is legitimate, it is necessary to interpret the requirements and confirm whether the superficies is for securing the right.

In full view of these points, even if a person with superficies has set up a financial institution for securing a claim against a landowner, it is necessary to appoint a substitute member when submitting a written consent for the establishment of the association, so the defendant and the intervenor's above assertion cannot be accepted.

(4) In addition, the defendant and the intervenor asserted to the effect that the consent of the owner of the land in question is valid, since the defendant and the intervenor obtained a written confirmation that the right to collateral security and superficies was created for the purpose of the right to collateral security in the case of six persons with superficies above.

According to the evidence No. 29, the committee of promotion of this case has received a written confirmation from five persons with superficies listed in No. 1, 3, 5, 8, and 9, around May 2008, that "I confirm that I created a collateral security and superficies for the purpose of owning dry water, other structures, or trees (security loan)."

However, the content of the above confirmation is merely to confirm the fact that the superficies is a security purpose, and furthermore, it does not include the purport of allowing the owner to engage in the act of law rate as a representative partner of the land concerned. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant and the intervenor cannot be accepted.

(5) Lastly, the intervenor asserts that the agreement of the owner of superficies listed in the No. 9 of the superficies No. 4 is valid because there is no superficies by collecting the loan and collecting the loan. However, as seen earlier, the registration of the creation of superficies for the above land remains without filing a lawsuit against the owner of superficies, and superficies do not share the existence of the secured debt and the name of the owner of the superficies, unlike the mortgage, unless they share the existence of the secured debt, it cannot be deemed that the superficies has been extinguished merely on the ground of the above assertion. Thus,

C) Part of the co-owned building

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 9 and the whole arguments, K donated a building on December 28, 200, J-ro, Busan High-dong 267, Busan High-dong, Busan High-dong, and completed the registration of the transfer of the right to claim against the above building on December 29, 200. Since J is no longer a co-owner of the above building, it is not a co-owner of the above building, the plaintiffs' assertion on this part is without merit.

7) Claim as to the computation of the number of consenters of the State and public land

A) First of all, Article 28(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas provides that the property management authority shall be calculated as the land owner with respect to state-owned and public-owned and public-owned land.

Therefore, it is legitimate that the Defendant calculated the number of owners of land, etc. and consenters for each management agency regarding the state-owned and public land located within the instant rearrangement project zone.

B) Next, Article 66 (3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas provides that the state-owned or public property within the rearrangement zone shall not be sold or transferred for any purpose other than the rearrangement project. Article 66 (4) of the Act provides that "State-owned or public property within the rearrangement zone may be sold or leased under a private contract to the project implementer or the occupant or user, notwithstanding the state-owned or public property management plan under Article 9 of the State Property Act or Article 77 of the Local Finance Act and the contract method under Article 43 of the State Property Act and Article 61 of the Local Finance Act."

In light of the purport of the above provisions, if the state-owned land management authority or the local autonomous organization did not express its opposing intent to establish an association when the establishment of maintenance plan includes matters concerning the reversion and disposal of the state-owned land, it is reasonable to view that the state or local government consents to the establishment of the association.

In addition, in the case of the State or local governments, the method of written consent by the certificate of a seal imprint attached to the certificate of a seal imprint under Article 17 (1) of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is not required, and the actual intention is sufficient if the consent is indicated in a reasonable way that can be objectively confirmed.

Based on the above legal principles, according to the statements in the Health Team, Gap evidence Nos. 13 and 25, the Busan Metropolitan City Minister of Maritime Affairs, the 53th Assistant Disease Team leader, the Korea Rail Network Authority Head, and the Korea Industrial Management Corporation submitted a written consent to establish an association on the state-owned or public land under their management, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the State or local government has expressed objection against the establishment of an association with respect to the state-owned or public land.

Therefore, even if some of the consent forms on the establishment of the association with respect to the state and public land were not submitted after the inaugural general meeting of this case or attached a certificate of personal seal impression, and some of them were not submitted at all, the defendant recognized the above state and public land as the consent form is legitimate.

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

8) The assertion that a union establishment agreement and a certificate of personal seal impression are nonexistent

을 제13, 14호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, L, AA, JJJ, KKK, LLL, MMM, NNN, 000, PPP, QQQ 등 10명은 각 인감증명서를 첨부하여 조합설립 동 의서를 이 사건 추진위원회에 제출한 사실, 한편 RRR은 2006. 4. 17. 인감증명서를 첨 부하여 조합설립 동의서를 이 사건 추진위원회에 제출하였고 그 후 2010. 10. 18. SSS 에게 부산 해운대구 우동 TTTTT 제5층 제502호를 매도하여 2010. 11. 30. 소유권이전 등기를 마쳐준 사실을 각 인정할 수 있다.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion that there is no consent letter of establishment and seal impression of 11 persons is without merit.

9) Claim for a letter of consent under the name of the deceased

If Gap's evidence Nos. 16, 30, and Eul's evidence Nos. 15 through 17, and 47 combines the purport of the whole pleadings, M can be acknowledged as the fact that Eul died on February 27, 201 after it submitted a written consent to establish the association on April 18, 2006 to the Promotion Committee of this case, and N submitted a written consent on April 15, 2006.

However, Article 28 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act provides that "a person who acquires land or buildings from a person who has consented to the establishment of a promotion committee or an association shall be deemed to have consented to the establishment of a promotion committee or an association."

Therefore, even if M, N, andO died after the establishment of an association as above, it cannot be said that the consent should be submitted again from the above members, with the consent of the representative members. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

10) Claim on a forged written consent of the certificate of seal impression

The statement of Gap evidence No. 17 alone is sufficient to recognize that the certificate of the personal seal impression was forged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

11) Claim on a written consent, in which the amount required to be stated is different or the indication is unclear.

A) Other parts of the written consent

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 20 and 38, P's written consent for the establishment of P's name is 383,266,984,30 won for new construction expenses, 95,816,746,075 won for other business expenses, 95,816,075 won for other business expenses, 95,816,075 won for other business expenses, and 95,16,746,075 respectively for the establishment of the R's association, the written consent for the establishment of the R's name is 95,16,746,075.

However, in light of the above evidence, since the above statement appears to be merely a clerical error, the above written consent cannot be deemed null and void, and this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

B) The portion where the entry of the amount is unclear

According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 43, it can be acknowledged that some of the estimated amounts of the cost of removal of buildings and construction of new buildings are not clearly stated in the written consent of the establishment of the association in the name of S, TT, UU, PP, V, W, W, YY, ZY, ZZ, XX, A, b, d, and e.

However, in light of the above evidence, it cannot be deemed that the above written consent cannot be specified merely due to the her draft of writing, and therefore, the above written consent cannot be deemed null and void, and the plaintiffs' assertion on this part is without merit.

12) Claim on consent forms requisitioned or overlapping from non-owner of land, etc.

A) T or U’s written consent

In each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 14, 21, 31, and Eul evidence Nos. 22 and 23, by integrating the purport of the entire pleadings, U shall own the housing building of 2nd floor of 13750 square meters of the Mari-dong 267-33, Busan Mari-dong 132 meters of the Mari-dong and the Mari-do 13750 of the Mari-do 13750 of the Mari-do Mari-dong 13750 of the above ground, and T owned the housing building of 6449 of the Mari-do 6449 of the Mari-gu Mari-do Mari-do 1449 of the above land. However, the above building was destroyed and the general building register of the above building was cancelled on February 22, 2011, and the defendant calculated T and U

According to the above facts, since the above land was owned by U alone, and T-owned one-story housing building on the ground was already destroyed at the time of the disposition of this case, T shall be excluded from the number of landowners and the number of consenters (one owner of land, etc. and one person with consent, respectively), and this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is with merit.

B) Consent letter in V name

According to the evidence No. 12 of Eul, since V is recognized that it has been paying attention to the above ground buildings of 203-6, Ma-dong, Busan, Ma-dong, Busan, and V is not the owner of the land within the rearrangement project zone of this case, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

C) Two copies of W’s written consent

According to Gap evidence Nos. 9 and Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 8, W owns VV large 377 square meters and buildings on its ground in Busan Shipping Daegu Do-dong, which owned the same WWWWWW WW large 201m and buildings on its ground. However, WW can be recognized as the president of the Dong branch, who is the head of the Dong branch, submitted a written consent on behalf of the above organization and submitted a written consent for its establishment.

According to the above facts, it is legitimate that the defendant treats W's consent form and W's consent form on behalf of W W's head of the Dong's branch, separately and recognized as two copies of consent form on behalf of W's head of the Dong's branch. This part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

13) Claim on the consent requisitioned after the public notice date of the inaugural General Meeting of this case

A) Relevant provisions

Article 14 (3) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that "A promotion committee shall hold an inaugural general meeting for establishment in accordance with the methods and procedures prescribed by Presidential Decree before applying for authorization to establish an association pursuant to Article 16 (1) and (2), and Article 22-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act provides that "a promotion committee shall hold an inaugural general meeting for establishment in accordance with Article 16 (1) through (3) pursuant to Article 14 (3) of the Act after obtaining a Dong council pursuant to Article 16 (1) through (3) of the Act and before applying for authorization to establish an association.

B) A written consent from the date of the public notice of the inaugural general meeting of this case

According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 42, 11, including f,g,h, h,j, m, n,q, r, and T, can be acknowledged as having submitted a written consent to establish an association to the committee of this case between the date of the public announcement of the general meeting of this case and the date of the above public announcement of the general meeting of this case.

However, Article 22-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas provides that the promotion committee shall hold an inaugural general meeting for the establishment of the association after obtaining consent of 75% of the landowners, including land, etc., and does not stipulate that the consent rate for the establishment of the association shall be met before the date of public announcement of the inaugural general meeting. Thus, it is difficult to view that there is a defect in the convocation procedure of the inaugural general meeting of this case and there is no reason to exclude

C) A written consent after the holding of the inaugural general meeting of this case

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 40, Y may recognize the fact that the Y submitted a written consent for the establishment of each association on July 27, 201, which was after the date of the inaugural general meeting in this case, and on May 25, 201, which was after the date of the above inaugural general meeting in this case.

However, the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and its Enforcement Decree provides that the requirements for holding the inaugural general meeting as mentioned above shall be met to prevent the execution of the inaugural general meeting from dance by holding the inaugural general meeting after obtaining consent from owners of land, etc. at least to the extent that the establishment of the association can be achieved.

On the other hand, the consent of the establishment of an association is a declaration of intention itself for the purpose of the establishment of the association and can be newly admitted as a member even after the inaugural general meeting is held. Therefore, it cannot be viewed that it depends on whether it is

Therefore, even if the above two written consents were submitted after the opening of the inaugural general meeting of this case, the above written consents cannot be excluded from the number of consenters, and therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

14) The assertion that the consent form for establishment of an association is valid due to the rejection of the alteration of the rearrangement zone at the former General Assembly of Residents

Article 20 (1) 4 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas provides that "the association shall prepare articles of association including the location and size of the prearranged zone for the rearrangement project", and Article 22-2 (4) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas provides that "the inaugural general meeting shall perform the confirmation of

In light of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 47 and return to the instant case, the instant promotion committee may hold an inaugural general meeting on May 17, 2001 to recognize the fact that it presented and resolved the cases of accepting the articles of association.

In full view of the above facts, the promotion committee of this case passed a resolution to implement the redevelopment project on the land of 229,730 square meters in Busan High-dong, Busan High-dong through the general assembly of the establishment of this case. Thus, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion on the premise that there was no resolution of the general assembly on the change in the project area is without merit.

15) Determination of the agreed rate of property

In full view of the aforementioned facts, examining the consent rate based on the date of the instant disposition, 1,053 owners of land, etc. who are the basis for calculating the same rate (1,054 owners of land, etc. of the instant disposition - 1,054 - T, and 787 holders are 804 persons who consent to the instant disposition - 4 of the attached Form 1 - 6 of the list of persons who consent to the revocation of consent - 6 of the attached Form 4 in the attached Form 4).

Therefore, the consent rate is 74.73% (i.e., 787 persons/1,053 persons x 100 persons x 2 decimal places) and 3/4 or more of the owners of land, etc. are not satisfied. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

16) Defendant’s assertion of ruling of assessment by the lower court

The first sentence of Article 28 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that the cancellation of the disposition, etc. may be dismissed if it is deemed that the cancellation of the disposition, etc. is significantly inappropriate for public welfare even if the plaintiff's request is deemed reasonable.

However, in a case where an administrative disposition is unlawful, the principle of revocation is the principle, and the court may render a judgment that exceptionally permits the revocation or alteration of such administrative disposition in a case where it is extremely inappropriate for the public welfare when it is extremely inappropriate for the public welfare. Thus, the use of the ruling by circumstance must be limited under extremely strict requirements. In determining whether it is substantially inappropriate for the public welfare, which is the requirement thereof, the necessity for cancellation or alteration of illegal and unfair administrative disposition, and the situation against public welfare which may arise from such revocation or alteration, should be compared and compared to the application thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 200928359, Dec. 10, 2009).

In light of the above facts, the effect of the housing redevelopment project on the rights of the landowner, etc. in the above business area, including the plaintiffs, is significant when the housing redevelopment project is implemented in the business area of the maintenance company of this case.

However, since the removal and relocation of residents and the removal of buildings within the rearrangement project zone of this case have not yet been implemented in full, it is difficult to view that the progress of the redevelopment project of this case is reasonable, and even if the procedures for establishing an association are newly conducted due to the cancellation of the disposition of this case, it cannot be readily concluded that the previous results have reached the same progress.

In full view of these circumstances, the cancellation of the instant disposition cannot be deemed significantly inappropriate for the public welfare on the sole basis of the circumstances alleged by the Defendant and the Intervenor, and thus, the above assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

Maximum seal (Presiding Judge)

Oral Dus

Kimok-Dhan

Site of separate sheet

Attached Table 1

The blank Consent

A person shall be appointed.

Attached Table 2

Persons withdrawing Consent

A person shall be appointed.

Attached Form 3

A person who alters a written consent

A person shall be appointed.

42 999 450 , 513 2006 . 7 . 13 . 별지2중복43 GGGGG 450 , 5150 2007 . 11 . 2 .44 HHHHH 450 - 2 2007 . 11 . 26 .45 IIIII 451 - 1 2006 . 2 . 8 .46 JJJJJ 451 - 5 2006 . 4 . 21 .47 KKKKK 451 - 12 2006 . 4 . 14 .48 LLLLL 451 - 14 2006 . 4 . 17 .49 MMMMM 521 - 1 2006 . 11 . 27 .50 NNNNN 450 , 2110 2006 . 4 . 17 .51 BB 149 - 16 2006 . 4 . 19 . 1 1 , 2552 00000 252 - 1 2006 . 4 . 13 .53 PPPPP 263 - 3 2006 . 4 . 17 .54 QQQQQ 426 - 5 2006 . 4 . 17 .

Attached Table 4

A superficiary

A person shall be appointed.

Attached Table 5

Relevant statutes

Gu Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9444 of Feb. 6, 2009)

Article 13 (Establishment of Partnership and Composition of Promotion Committee)

(1) Where persons other than the head of a Si/Gun or the Korea Housing Corporation, etc. intend to implement a rearrangement project, they shall establish an association comprised of landowners, etc.: Provided, That the same shall not apply where landowners, etc. intend to implement an urban environment rearrangement project under Article 8

(2) Where it is intended to establish an association under paragraph (1), the association shall be approved by the head of a Si/Gun according to the methods and procedures prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, by seeking an association establishment promotion committee (hereinafter referred to as "promotion committee") with at least five members, including the chairperson, after obtaining consent

Article 14 (Functions of Promotion Committee)

(1) The promotion committee shall perform the following duties:

4. Preparatory affairs for obtaining authorization for the establishment of a cooperative;

5. Other affairs necessary for promoting an establishment of the partnership, which are prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

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

Article 2 (Definitions of Terms)

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

9. The term “owner of land, etc.” means:

(a) In cases of a residential environment improvement project, housing redevelopment project or urban environment rearrangement project, cattle in a rearrangement zone;

The owner or superficies of the re-land or building

Article 13 (Establishment of Partnership and Organization of Promotion Committee)

(2) Where it is intended to establish an association pursuant to paragraph (1), a promotion committee for establishing an association shall be organized with the consent of a majority of the members, including the chairperson, and the operating regulations under Article 15 (2) of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs after public announcement of designation of a rearrangement zone under Article 4 (referring to the feasibility of implementing a housing reconstruction project in an area other than a rearrangement zone under Article 12 (5) in cases of a housing reconstruction project in an area outside the rearrangement zone) and the

Article 14 (Functions of Promotion Committee)

(3) Before applying for authorization to establish an association under Article 16 (1) and (2), a promotion committee shall hold an inaugural general meeting for establishing an association in accordance with the methods and procedures prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 16 (Authorization, etc. to Establish Cooperatives)

(1) When the promotion committee for housing redevelopment projects and urban environment rearrangement projects intends to establish an association, it shall obtain authorization from the head of a Si/Gun, along with the following matters, after obtaining the consent of at least 3/4 of the owners of land, etc. and landowners of at least 1/2 of the area of land. The same shall also apply to cases where it intends to modify the authorized matters: Provided, That the same shall also apply to cases where it intends to modify minor matters prescribed by Presidential Decree:

Article 17 (Method, etc. of Consent by Owners of Land, etc.)

(1) Consent (including withdrawal of matters consented or expression of opposite opinion under Articles 8 (4) 7, 13 (3) and 26 (3)) under Articles 7 (1), 8 (1) through (4), 13 (2), 14 (4), 16 (1) through (3), 26 (3), 28 (7), and 33 (2) shall be made by means of a written consent using a seal imprint, and a certificate of personal seal impression shall be attached thereto. In such cases, if a certificate of personal seal imprint is previously submitted, it may not be attached, but this shall not apply where it is deemed necessary to attach a certificate of personal seal imprint reduced due to a change in the seal imprint, etc.

(2) Methods and procedures for calculating number of consenters of owners of land, etc. under paragraphs (1) and 12, and other necessary matters, shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 20 (Preparation and Alteration of Articles of Incorporation)

(1) Each cooperative shall prepare the articles of association that include:

4. Location and size of prearranged zone for rearrangement project.

Article 66 (Disposal, etc. of State or Public Property)

(3) No State or public property within the rearrangement zone shall be sold or transferred for any purpose other than the rearrangement project.

(4) The State or public property within the rearrangement zone may be sold or leased by a private contract in preference to the project implementers, occupants or users, notwithstanding the State or public property management plans under Article 9 of the State Property Act or Article 77 of the Local Finance Act, and the methods of contracts under Article 43 of the State Property Act and Article 61 of the Local Finance Act.

Article 22 (Duties of Promotion Committee) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21171 on December 17, 2008)

The term “business prescribed by the Presidential Decree” in Article 14 (1) 5 of the Act means the following matters:

1. Operational rules of the association establishment promotion committee under Article 13 (2) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the “promotion committee”);

Preparation

2. Demand for written consent of the owners of land, etc.;

3. Preparation for the inaugural general meeting for establishment of associations;

4. Preparation of the articles of association;

5. Other matters prescribed by operational regulations of the promotion committee.

Article 26 (Methods, etc. of Applying for Authorization to Establish Cooperatives)

(1) The consent of the owners of lands, etc. under Article 16 (1) through (3) of the Act shall be obtained by the method of obtaining the consent of re-scheduled consent forms for the following matters:

1. Outline of the design of the building to be built;

2. Rough amount of expenses required for the removal and new construction of the building; and

3. Matters concerning the apportionment of expenses referred to in subparagraph 2 (where a design outline referred to in subparagraph 1 is changed, a standard for sharing expenses shall be promulgated;

b) the Corporation;

4. Matters on the reversion of ownership after completion of the project;

5. Articles of association.

Article 28 (Methods of Calculating Consent Number of Owners of Land, etc.)

(1) Pursuant to Article 17 of the Act, consent from the owners of land, etc. under Articles 13 through 16 of the Act shall be calculated in accordance with the following guidelines:

3. Promoters who have acquired land or buildings from persons consenting to the establishment of the promotion committee or partnership.

shall be deemed to have consented to the establishment of the association or association.

The former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24007, Jul. 31, 2012)

Article 22-2 (Method, Procedure, etc. of Inaugural General Meeting)

(1) A promotion committee shall hold an inaugural general meeting for establishing an association (hereinafter referred to as " inaugural general meeting") after obtaining consent under Article 16 (1) through (3) pursuant to Article 14 (3) of the Act and before applying for authorization to establish an association.

(2) A promotion committee shall disclose the objectives of meetings, agenda items, dates, places, qualifications for attendance, matters meeting, etc. on its Internet homepage by 14 days before the inaugural general meeting, and send and notify the owners of land, etc. by registered mail to the owners of land, etc.

1. Confirmation of the articles of association;

Article 26 (Methods, etc. of Applying for Authorization to Establish Cooperatives)

(1) Consent of the owners of land, etc. under Article 16 (1) through (3) of the Act shall be obtained by obtaining consent from the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs

(2) A written consent under paragraph (1) shall include the following matters:

1. Outline of the design of the building to be built;

2. Rough amount of expenses required for the removal and new construction of the building; and

3. Criteria for sharing expenses under subparagraph 2;

4. Matters concerning the reversion of ownership after completion of the project;

5. Articles of association.

Article 28 (Method of Calculating Number of Consent by Owners of Land, etc.)

(1) Consent from the owners of land, etc. under Articles 17 (1) and 12 of the Act shall be calculated in accordance with the following guidelines:

1. In cases of a residential environment improvement project, housing redevelopment project or urban environment rearrangement project, the following standards:

of the corporation; and

(a) In case where one piece of land or one building is owned by several persons, one representing such persons;

To calculate the person as the owner of land, etc.

1 person shall be computed as the owners of lands, etc.

3. Promoters who have acquired land or buildings from persons consenting to the establishment of the promotion committee or partnership.

shall be deemed to have consented to the establishment of the association or association.

5. In cases of State-owned or public land, the property management authority shall be calculated as the owners of such land, etc.

Addenda ( December 17, 2008)

Article 1 (Enforcement Date)

This Decree shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation.

Article 2 (Application Methods of Application for Authorization to Establish Cooperatives, etc.)

The amended provisions of Article 26 (1) shall apply to the portion applied for authorization (including authorization for changes) for the establishment of an association after this Decree enters into force.

(1) Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 506 on August 2,

Article 7 (Application, etc. for Authorization to Establish Cooperatives)

(3) "Written consent determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs" in Article 26 (1) of the Decree means the written consent to the resumption of housing in attached Form 4-2 or to the establishment of an urban environment rearrangement project association in attached Form 4-3.

심급 사건

-부산지방법원 2013.1.31.선고 2012구합97

부산고등법원 2013.8.23.선고 2013누574

참조조문

-국유재산법 제9조

-국유재산법 제43조

-도시 및 주거환경정비법

-도시 및 주거환경정비법 제2조 제9호 가목

-도시 및 주거환경정비법 제13조 제2항

-도시 및 주거환경정비법 제14조 제1항 제4호

-도시 및 주거환경정비법 제14조 제3항

-도시 및 주거환경정비법 제16조 제1항