도시정비법상 추진위원회와 관련한 제반 법률문제

There have been a number of problems regarding housing reconstruction and redevelopment projects which were conducted under existing laws prior to the enforcement of the Urban and Living Environment Improvement Act (the “Act”) of July 1, 2003. Due to the lack of relevant regulations on preparatory committees of such projects-especially redevelopment projects-various disputes and conflicts occurred as numerous preparatory committees were arbitrarily established. The Act provided that a preparatory committee must be established under applicable written rules, requires approval from competent authority by obtaining consent from a certain number of housing or land owners and once a preparatory committee is approved, activities of another preparatory committee shall be subject to criminal punishment. The Act was intended to legislatively resolve disputes surrounding preparatory committees by legally establishing the work boundary, etc. of a preparatory committee. Yet despite the aforementioned legislative attempt, numerous disputes occurred, as relevant legal principles were not established at its early stage. Although numerous disputes have been resolved after the accumulation of Supreme Court precedents and improvements were made to the Act, specific details of the Act should be discussed further. In accordance the Act, and based on the discussions so far, a preparatory committee can be summarized as: “(i) a non-corporate association that is independent from the association, and the approval of establishment thereof by the competent administrative agency constitutes a mandatory patent or permit; (ii) the establishment of a preparatory committee shall be approved after the designation of the improvement zone, and any approval of establishment prior to the designation is illegal; provided, however, that if the zone expected to be improved was already designated, the approval shall not be null and void; (iii) the constructor shall not be appointed at a general meeting of residents of the preparatory committee, and thus, the selection of the constructor at the meeting shall be invalid; (iv) rights and obligations related to the duties performed by a preparatory committee shall be succeeded by the relevant association entirely even though the duties would not fall under the scope of the ex post facto duties of the preparatory committee and thus become invalid; and (v) if the relevant association is established, there is no legal merit seeking cancellation or confirmation of invalidity of approval of the establishment of the preparatory committee.”Additionally, there is dispute over whether an existing preparatory committee is entitled to perform duties related to establishment of an association, when cancellation or invalidity of an establishment approval is confirmed. Other disputes include whether an association establishment approval may be deemed null and void, if the preparatory committee establishment approval is found to be null and void after the relevant association has been established and discussions over the legal nature of approval regarding changes in the preparatory committee due to changes in the relevant area.