beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
[Claim]
Reasons
1. Based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance (such as the law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, and judgment on issues) are sufficiently reasonable.
The reasoning of this court's reasoning is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation of this case shall be cited as it is including abbreviations pursuant to the main sentence of
2. The fourth-party 9 to 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be completed by cutting down the following parts.
A) According to Article 16-2(1)2 of the Urban Improvement Act, where the head of a Si/Gun files an application for dissolution of an association with the consent of a majority of the owners of land, etc. at least the rate prescribed by City/Do municipal ordinances, within the scope of 1/2 to 2/3 of the members who have agreed to establish the association, or with the consent of a majority of the owners of the land, etc., the head of a Si/Gun shall revoke the authorization for establishment of the association (Article 11293-2(1)2 of the Addenda to the Urban Improvement Act).
(2) According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the entire pleadings, A filed an application for dissolution with the Plaintiff Union to the head of Mapo-gu on December 28, 2015 with the consent of some union members under Article 16-2(1)2 of the Urban Improvement Act, and the head of Mapo-gu rendered a disposition rejecting the said application for dissolution on February 29, 2016 on the grounds that at least 1/2 of union members who agreed to establish the association did not consent to dissolution. Accordingly, A filed a lawsuit against the head of Mapo-gu on April 26, 2016 against the Plaintiff Union to file a claim for revocation of revocation of disposition against the head of Mapo-gu on the application for dissolution of the Plaintiff Union by the date on which the lawsuit is pending (Seoul Administrative Court 2016Guhap61327).