Whether a public notice on the transfer of ownership of a site or a building under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments may be divided, or the entire transfer public notice may be invalidated (negative)

If a public announcement on the transfer of ownership of a building site or structure becomes effective as prescribed in Articles 54(1) and (2) and 55(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the ownership of the right to the building site or structure shall be determined according to the management and disposal plan, and a new legal relationship shall be created again based on the same. As long as the ownership of the right to the majority of the members, etc. is uniformly and uniformly treated as a result of the effectiveness of the public announcement on the transfer, the entire transfer shall not be separately modified, and the entire transfer announcement shall be null and void, and it shall be subject to the procedure for the public announcement on the transfer of ownership from the beginning, and it shall not be permissible

Considering the public interest and collective legal nature of the rearrangement project as above and the need to protect legal stability by maintaining the legal relationship already formed in accordance with the public notice of transfer, it is no longer permissible to restore the result of the rearrangement project to the original state, and thus, it is reasonable to interpret that there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the disposition approving the establishment of a partnership or seeking nullification of the disposition after the transfer becomes effective. Meanwhile, since the disposition imposing liquidation money has the nature of an execution of part of the finalized management and disposition plan, it is difficult to interpret otherwise on the ground that the rearrangement project association can impose liquidation money after the transfer becomes effective.

Articles 54(1) and (2), and 55(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Du6400 Decided March 22, 2012 (Gong2012Sang, 682)

Plaintiff (Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

same as the attached list (Attorney Han Han-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Jung-gu, Daejeon Metropolitan City (Attorney Kim-type, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (Attorneys Kim Young-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 2009Du4555 Decided December 9, 2010

Daejeon High Court Decision 2010Nu2874 decided July 21, 2011

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party, including the part resulting from supplementary participation.

1. The part of the claim for nullification and revocation of the disposition approving the establishment of a partnership on July 31, 2006

Judgment ex officio is made.

According to Articles 54(1) and (2) and 55(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, a project implementer who implements a housing redevelopment improvement project shall, without delay, notify a purchaser of the matters determined by the management and disposal plan after undergoing a site confirmation survey and division procedure of land, and transfer the ownership of the site or structure to the purchaser of the building; and after publicly announcing the details thereof in the official report of the relevant local government, the purchaser of the building site or structure shall acquire the ownership of the building site or structure on the date following the announcement date, and in such cases, the right registered, such as superficies established on the previous land or building, and the right to lease satisfying the requirements under Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act shall be deemed established on the site

As above, if the public notice on the transfer of ownership of a building site or structure becomes effective, the ownership of the right to the building site or structure becomes final and conclusive in accordance with the management and disposal plan, and the ownership of the right to the building site or structure becomes new legal relationship is created based on the same. As long as the ownership belonging to the majority of union members, etc. is uniformly and uniformly treated as a result of the effectiveness of the public notice on transfer, only a part of the following can not be separately modified. Thus, it is not permissible to establish a management and disposal plan again and make it invalid for all of the public notice on transfer and to follow the procedures for the public notice on transfer and transfer as it goes against the public interest and organization legal nature of the rearrangement project (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Du

Considering the public interest and collective legal nature of the rearrangement project as above and the need to protect legal stability by maintaining the legal relationship already formed in accordance with the public notice of transfer, it is no longer permissible to restore the result of the rearrangement project to the original state, and thus, it is reasonable to interpret that there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the disposition approving the establishment of a partnership or seeking nullification of the disposition after the transfer becomes effective. Meanwhile, since the disposition imposing liquidation money has the nature of an execution of part of the finalized management and disposition plan, it is difficult to interpret otherwise on the ground that the rearrangement project association can impose liquidation money after the transfer becomes effective.

According to the records, on January 3, 2014, which was after the plaintiff filed the appeal of this case, the defendant joining the defendant, on January 3, 2014, announced the transfer of the housing redevelopment rearrangement project of this case and became effective. Accordingly, the plaintiff has no legal interest in seeking revocation or nullification of the disposition to establish the association of this case.

Therefore, all of the lawsuits against the main claimant and the conjunctive claimant's revocation of the disposition approving the establishment of the association of this case are unlawful, and the court below erred in its reasoning, but all of the lawsuits were dismissed by the court of first instance.

2. Request for nullification of the disposition of modification on June 5, 2007 and the part concerning the claim for revocation

The plaintiff, among the judgment of the court below, filed an appeal as to the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of invalidity and revocation of the defendant's establishment approval of the Housing Redevelopment Project Association's establishment and alteration approval of the Housing Redevelopment Project Association's establishment and the claim for revocation as of Jun. 5, 2007, but there is no indication

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal shall be borne by each party, including the part resulting from participation in the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Intervenors to the Plaintiff: Omitted

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)