[1] Whether a management and disposal plan under the Urban Redevelopment Act is an administrative disposition subject to appeal (affirmative)

[2] Whether a management and disposal plan is null and void in a case where there is a defect in the method of calculating the liquidation amount under a management and disposal plan, such as an improper application of proportional rates (negative)

[3] The meaning of an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation

[4] The case holding that a notice of the title "inform of the results of drawing lots and guidance on the conclusion of sales contract" given by a redevelopment cooperative to its members cannot be deemed as an administrative disposition causing direct changes in the specific rights and obligations of its members

[1] An urban redevelopment association under the Urban Redevelopment Act is a special administrative agent with at least special purpose in legal relations with members, and is in a relationship of rights and duties under public law to the extent that it can be deemed that it is engaged in specific public affairs, the purpose of existence of which is its existence under the supervision of the State. Therefore, in a case where there is a dispute as to the contents of a management and disposal plan determined after the application for parcelling-out, the management and disposal plan constitutes a disposition by an association that

[2] In order to invalidate a defect in the management and disposal plan due to the defect in the management and disposal plan, the defect is required to be significant and apparent, and even if there is a defect in the method of calculating the liquidation amount as stipulated in the management and disposal plan, such defect cannot be deemed as a significant and apparent defect, barring any other special circumstances. Thus, it shall not be deemed null and void on the ground of such defect.

[3] The term "administrative disposition", which is the object of an appeal litigation, means an act of an administrative agency under public law, which directly changes citizens' specific rights and duties, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations with regard to a specific matter, or causing other legal effects.

[4] The case holding that where the redevelopment association notifies union members of the title "inform union members of the results of the drawing of lots and guidance on the conclusion of the contract for sale" so that they will not suffer any personal disadvantage due to delay of contract, etc., the above notification is merely an instruction for union members to pay the parcelling-out price in response to the parcelling-out contract within the above time limit as stipulated in the management disposition plan, and it does not constitute an administrative disposition that directly changes the specific rights and obligations of union members such as ordering union members to enter into the parcelling-out contract or pay the parcelling-out price, or creating a new legal effect.

[1] Articles 13, 14, 18(1)9, 20, 34, and 42 of the Urban Redevelopment Act; Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 20, 34, and 42 of the Urban Redevelopment Act; Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Articles 1 [4], 2, and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [4] Articles 33, 34, and 42 of the Urban Redevelopment Act; Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [general administrative disposition] Articles 2, and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Nu2348 delivered on May 23, 1989 (Gong1989, 994), Supreme Court Decision 94Da31235 delivered on February 15, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 768), Supreme Court Decision 95Da4394 delivered on November 28, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 298Sang, 2999) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu6331 delivered on October 26, 1993 (Gong1993, 396Du94969 delivered on March 194, 195) 2996Du963969 delivered on September 26, 1993 (Gong1969, 194).

Plaintiff

Housing Redevelopment Association in Dowon District (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Song-sop et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Song Ho-sop et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu12555 delivered on July 11, 2001

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Since the redevelopment partnership under the Urban Redevelopment Act, as a special administrative body with a special purpose of existence in legal relations with its members, is engaged in specific public affairs under the supervision of the State, and there is a dispute over the contents of the management and disposal plan determined after the application for parcelling-out, such management and disposal plan shall be deemed to have a specific and conclusive influence on the owners of the land, etc. and thus, it is possible to seek nullification or revocation thereof through an appeal litigation (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Da31235 delivered on February 15, 1996). Meanwhile, in order to invalidate it due to the defect in such management and disposal plan, it is required to have a significant and apparent defect in order to be invalidated. Thus, even if there is a defect in the method of calculating the liquidation amount determined in the management and disposal plan, such defect cannot be deemed to have been null and void due to such a defect, barring any special circumstances.

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 그 채용 증거를 종합하여, 피고는 서울 용산구 (주소 생략) 일대 70,307.30㎡ 지상에 아파트 17개동 1,992세대를 신축하는 내용의 주택개량재개발사업을 시행하는 조합으로서 1995. 12. 30. 주택조합설립 및 재개발사업시행인가를 받아, 1998. 5. 4. 피고와 공사도급계약을 체결한 피고보조참가인(이하 '참가인'이라고 한다)으로 하여금 그 공사에 착공하도록 하였고, 1998. 6. 18. 용산구청장으로부터 관리처분계획 인가를 받았다가 다시 1998. 12. 1. 관리처분계획변경인가(이하 변경인가후의 관리처분계획을 '이 사건 관리처분계획'이라 한다)를 받은 사실, 한편 원고는 이 사건 재개발사업구역 안의 토지 및 건축물을 소유한 조합원으로서 피고 조합의 정관 및 이 사건 관리처분계획에 따라 32.76평형 분양예정대상자로 결정되었는데 이 사건 관리처분계획에 의하면, 원고에 대하여 징수할 청산금은 원고에게 분양예정인 32.76평형 아파트 1세대의 분양가액으로 책정된 151,891,000원에서 원고의 종전 재산 평가액 26,761,600원에 97.62%의 비례율을 적용하여 산정한 26,124,674원(≒ 26,761,600원 × 0.9762)을 공제한 125,766,326원으로 결정된 사실을 인정한 다음, 피고가 참가인과 사이에 건축시설공사도급계약을 체결함에 있어서 공사단가를 조합원과 일반분양자 사이에 부당하게 차별적으로 책정함으로써 발생한 차액 상당의 손실을 조합원에게 부담시키기 위하여 법률상 아무런 근거가 없는 비례율을 적용하여 원고의 종전 재산 평가액을 부당하게 감액하였고, 한편으로 원고가 분양받게 될 건축시설과 대지 중 택지비를 산정함에 있어서 개발이익을 포함시켜 이를 과대하게 평가하여 결국 이 사건 관리처분계획 중 원고에게 분양예정인 대지 및 건축시설의 가액과 원고가 이 사건 재개발사업시행구역 내에 소유하고 있던 종전의 토지 및 건축시설의 가격과의 차액을 산정한 부분은 관련 법규, 조례 등에 반하는 것으로서 무효라는 원고의 주장에 대하여, 가사 이 사건 관리처분계획 중 원고가 주장하는 바와 같은 차액 산정부분에 잘못이 있다 하더라도 이는 단순히 청산금산정방법의 잘못에 불과하고 그 하자가 중대하고도 명백하다고 볼 수 없어 이를 무효로 볼 수 없다는 이유로, 원고의 위 주장을 배척하였다.

Examining the judgment of the court below in light of the records and the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the invalidation of administrative disposition.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The term "administrative disposition" that is the object of an appeal litigation means an act of an administrative agency under public law, which causes direct changes in the specific rights and obligations of citizens, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations under Acts and subordinate statutes, or giving rise to other legal effects (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu909, Nov. 21, 1995; 93Nu12619, Dec. 10, 1993).

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below and records, the redevelopment partnership's approval of the management and disposal plan on June 18, 198 in the course of implementing the housing improvement redevelopment project as mentioned above and completion of apartment units and unit numbers drawing to be sold to its members on November 18, 1998, and around the 20th day of the same month, notice of union members' dong and unit numbers drawing and notification of the result of the sale contract and the details of payment under the partnership's agreement (contract period: from November 26, 1998 to November 27, 1998 to ensure that the plaintiff et al. should not suffer personal disadvantage due to delayed payment or overdue payment, etc.) can be acknowledged. In light of the above legal principles, the above notice cannot be viewed as ordering the union members such as the plaintiff et al. to pay the sale price to the union members in compliance with the management and disposal plan, and it does not constitute a direct administrative disposition that may cause a change in the rights and obligations of the union members.

The judgment of the court below is justified in holding that the notice of this case does not constitute an administrative disposition, although there is no lack in its explanation of its reason, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to an administrative disposition, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Lee Jae-in (Presiding Justice)