Whether the "corporation established by the owner of land, etc. to promote a market improvement project" under the special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets and Shopping Districts includes a company under the Commercial Act as well as an incorporated association (affirmative)

Articles 2 subparag. 3, 18(2), 30(1), 33(1), 33(2), 44(1), and 41(1) of the Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Act on Traditional Markets”) include the details of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the legislative purpose and revision history of the Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets, and other corporations established by landowners, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “market improvement corporations”) to promote market improvement projects in addition to the existing market improvement project executor, the fact that the Special Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Traditional Markets includes not only the fact that the owners of land, etc. establish a new market improvement project association in order to establish a market improvement project association instead of the promotion committee, but also the fact that the head of each Si/Gun/Gu has to establish a market improvement project association and establish a new market improvement project association in a manner that establishes a market improvement project, and the fact that the owners of land, etc. can obtain consent from the head of each Si/Gun/Gu without the approval of the project implementation plan.

Articles 2 subparag. 3, 18(2), and 30(1) of the former Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets (wholly amended by Act No. 7945 of Apr. 28, 2006), Articles 1, 4(1), 33(1) and (2), 34(1), and 41(1) of the former Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets and Shopping Districts

Epic Global (Law Firm B et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office Chang-gu (Law Firm Jeongse, Attorneys Park Dong-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu31900 decided February 5, 2013

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

According to Articles 2 subparag. 3, 18(2), and 30(1) of the former Special Act on the Promotion of Traditional Markets (wholly amended by Act No. 7945, Apr. 28, 2006) (wholly amended by the Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets and Shopping Districts), owners of land, etc. in a project implementation district, owners of land, etc. in a project implementation district, owners of land, etc. in a project implementation district, and owners of land, etc. in a project implementation district, may be a project developer for a market improvement project.

However, according to Articles 1, 4(1), 33(1) and (2), 34(1), and 41(1) of the Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets and Shopping Districts (hereinafter “Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets”), a person who is entitled to file an application for recommendation on approval on a market improvement project plan shall be the same as a land owner (limited to cases where an individual or corporation is owned by itself), a promotion committee, a corporation established by landowners, etc. to promote a market improvement project (hereinafter “market improvement project corporation”), the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, a local public corporation, and a project developer who intends to obtain approval on a market improvement project plan is identical to a person who is entitled to file an application for approval on the above project promotion plan in addition to the alteration of a market improvement project as a market improvement project owner. In such case, a person who intends to obtain approval on a market improvement project plan shall establish a project promotion plan and obtain the consent of at least 3/5 of land owners and at least 3/5 of total number of land owners.

In addition to the contents of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, legislative purpose and amendment history of the Special Act on Traditional Markets, etc., the Special Act on Traditional Markets provides that a market improvement project may be promoted more rapidly and smoothly by adding a new market improvement project corporation other than the existing market improvement project partnership to form a promotion committee and establishing a market improvement project corporation instead of establishing a market improvement project partnership. The Special Act on Traditional Markets only provides that a market improvement project corporation shall be "a corporation established by landowners, etc. to promote a market improvement project" and does not limit the form of such corporation to an incorporated association under the Civil Act. It does not limit the form of such corporation to an incorporated association under the Civil Act. The establishment of a project promotion plan for a market improvement project and submission of a project implementation plan to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu or the project implementation plan to obtain an authorization for project implementation, the consent of owners of land equivalent to at least 3/5 of the area of each market improvement zone and the consent of the total number of landowners, etc. shall be obtained after the project implementation is authorized. In light of the provisions of the Special Act on Traditional Markets, as well as an incorporated Association shall be construed.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the disposition of this case which rejected the plaintiff's application on the ground that the market improvement project corporation should be limited to incorporated associations under the Civil Act is unlawful, since the market improvement project corporation under the Special Act on Traditional Markets shall be deemed to be included

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of market improvement project corporations under the

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)