Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Scope of pre-meeting notice in a management plan and partial annulment
Supreme Court, Dec. 11, 2025, 2022Du59844 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 관리처분계획취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under Article 74(1) and (3) of the former Urban and Resident Environment Maintenance Act, must the estimated value and the list and price of existing assets for every allotment target be notified to each member before the general meeting, is an omission to rule expressly on an argument unlawful, and may part of a management disposal plan be annulled on its own?
Holding
No. The items to be notified under the former Act mean only the content concerning the member who receives the notice, and do not include content concerning other members or other allotment targets. Even where a judgment does not state a concrete and direct ruling on an argument, there is no unlawful omission if the overall tenor of the reasons shows how the argument was treated, or if it is clear that the argument would be rejected. Even an administrative disposition in the form of one act may be annulled in part where it is severable or part of its object can be identified.
Points at issue, verbatim
법원의 판결에 당사자가 주장한 사항에 대한 구체적·직접적인 판단이 표시되어 있지 않더라도 판결 이유의 전반적인 취지에 비추어 주장의 인용 여부를 알 수 있는 경우 또는 실제로 판단을 하지 않았더라도 주장이 배척될 것임이 분명한 경우, 판단누락의 위법이 있다고 할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, even where a court's judgment does not indicate a specific and direct determination on a matter asserted by a party, there may be said to be an illegality of omission of determination where the tenor of the reasoning of the judgment as a whole makes it possible to ascertain whether the assertion was accepted, or where, even though no determination was in fact made, it is clear that the assertion would be rejected (negative)
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고(선정당사자) 및 원고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The appeal costs shall be borne by the plaintiff (selected party) and the plaintiffs.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이 사건 통지규정에서 통지 의무를 부과하고 있는 사항인 ‘분양대상자별 분양예정인 대지 또는 건축물의 추산액’과 ‘분양대상자별 종전의 토지 또는 건축물 명세 및 사업시행계획인가 고시가 있은 날을 기준으로 한 가격’은 통지를 받는 해당 조합원에 관한 내용만을 의미하고, 다른 조합원 또는 분양대상자에 관한 내용은 이에 포함되지 않는다고 봄이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
The "estimated amount of the land or building planned for supply for each person eligible for supply" and the "statement and the price of the pre-existing land or building for each person eligible for supply, as of the date of the public announcement of the approval of the project implementation plan," which are the matters for which the notice obligation is imposed by the notice provision in this case, are deemed to mean only the content concerning the association member to whom the notice is given, and it is reasonable to view that the content concerning other association members or persons eligible for supply is not included therein.
Factors
- ‘분양대상자별 분양예정자산의 추산액’, ‘분양대상자별 종전자산 명세 및 가격’의 범위
- 실제로 판단을 하지 않았더라도 주장이 배척될 것임이 분명한 경우, 판단누락의 위법이 있다고 할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
- 외형상 하나의 행정처분이라도 가분성이 있거나 처분대상의 일부가 특정될 수 있는 경우, 일부만의 취소가 가능한지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
• The scope of the "estimated amount of the assets planned for supply for each person eligible for supply" and the "statement and price of the pre-existing assets for each person eligible for supply"
• Whether, even where no determination was in fact made, there may be said to be an illegality of omission of determination where it is clear that the assertion would be rejected (negative)
• Whether, even where a single administrative disposition in appearance is divisible or where part of the subject of the disposition can be identified, a partial cancellation alone may be possible (affirmative)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2013. 3. 28. 선고 2010두20805 판결(공2013상, 770)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2010Du20805 decided March 28, 2013 (Gong 2013 Sang, 770)
Decisions referred to
[2] 대법원 2013. 3. 28. 선고 2010두20805 판결(공2013상, 770) / [3] 대법원 1995. 11. 16. 선고 95누8850 전원합의체 판결(공1995하, 3812), 대법원 2015. 3. 26. 선고 2012두20304 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the notice is defective as to the recipient's own estimated value and existing-asset list, does that defect invalidate the whole management disposal plan, or only the allotment affected by it?
Any amendment to Article 74 of the Urban and Resident Environment Maintenance Act, including the current Article 74(5), or a later decision changing the rule on partial annulment of an administrative disposition, calls for a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the notice is defective as to the recipient's own estimated value and existing-asset list, does that defect invalidate the whole management disposal plan, or only the allotment affected by it?” vs Independent “When would defects in the commercial premises portion make the remaining residential portion incapable of surviving independently?”
The primary asks how a defect in a member's own notice affects the plan, while the independent asks when defects in commercial premises prevent the residential portion from surviving independently.
법원의 판결에 당사자가 주장한 사항에 대한 구체적·직접적인 판단이 표시되어 있지 않더라도 판결 이유의 전반적인 취지에 비추어 주장의 인용 여부를 알 수 있는 경우 또는 실제로 판단을 하지 않았더라도 주장이 배척될 것임이 분명한 경우, 판단누락의 위법이 있다고 할 수 있는지 여부(소극)Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 7 September 2022 (2021Nu36440), affirmed the first-instance judgment and rejected the claims of the plaintiff, the selected party, and the plaintiffs. It held that the defendant had notified each member of the matters set out in the notice provision, including the estimated value of the land or building to be allotted to each allotment target and the list and price of the existing land or building as at the date of the notice of approval of the project implementation plan, so there was no defect in the notice. It also held that allocating apartments by the order of the value of rights, with competitors found among members who had applied for second and third preferences as well as first preferences, complied with the statutes and that the defendant's guidance on allotment applications was not insufficient, and that the shopping area part of the plan could be severed from the rest, so only that part needed to be annulled.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. The notice items under the former Act concern only the member who receives the notice, and the court below's rejection of the plaintiffs' claim that the notice was defective because figures for all allotment targets were not given was within the law; even if that point had not been expressly ruled on, the claim would clearly have been rejected and could not have affected the result. On the allocation procedure and the allotment order it found no misapplication of law, and it held that the reasoning on partial annulment of the shopping area rested on the settled rule, dismissing all the appeals with the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A notice that omits the estimated value and the list and price of existing assets for the very member receiving it, since the statutory duty runs to that member's own content.
- A case in which the overall tenor of the reasons leaves it genuinely unclear whether an argument was accepted or rejected, since the no-omission rule applies only where the treatment can be discerned or rejection is plainly unavoidable.
- A management disposal plan whose shopping area part cannot be severed, or whose remaining part could not survive as an independent valid disposition.
Record verification notes
Set each member's notice document against that member's own allotment target, since the Court read the duty as reaching only the recipient's content. Then check whether the arguments raised below were in fact dealt with in the reasons, or whether they were clearly bound to fail, before relying on the omission point. Finally, test whether the part said to be severable could stand on its own as a valid disposition, since the Court followed the rule allowing partial annulment on that condition.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 도시 및 주거환경정비법 제74조 제1항, 제3항에 따라 관리처분계획 수립 등을 의결하기 위한 총회 개최 전에 각 조합원에게 통지해야 할 사항인 ‘분양대상자별 분양예정자산의 추산액’, ‘분양대상자별 종전자산 명세 및 가격’의 범위 [2] 법원의 판결에 당사자가 주장한 사항에 대한 구체적·직접적인 판단이 표시되어 있지 않더라도 판결 이유의 전반적인 취지에 비추어 주장의 인용 여부를 알 수 있는 경우 또는 실제로 판단을 하지 않았더라도 주장이 배척될 것임이 분명한 경우, 판단누락의 위법이 있다고 할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [3] 외형상 하나의 행정처분이라도 가분성이 있거나 처분대상의 일부가 특정될 수 있는 경우, 일부만의 취소가 가능한지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] The scope of the "estimated amount of the assets planned for supply for each person eligible for supply" and the "statement and price of the pre-existing assets for each person eligible for supply," which are matters that must be notified to each association member before convening a general meeting to resolve on the establishment, etc. of a management disposition plan pursuant to Article 74 (1) and (3) of the former Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments [2] Whether, even where a court's judgment does not indicate a specific and direct determination on a matter asserted by a party, there may be said to be an illegality of omission of determination where the tenor of the reasoning of the judgment as a whole makes it possible to ascertain whether the assertion was accepted, or where, even though no determination was in fact made, it is clear that the assertion would be rejected (negative) [3] Whether, even where a single administrative disposition in appearance is divisible or where part of the subject of the disposition can be identified, a partial cancellation alone may be possible (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고(선정당사자) 및 원고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The appeal costs shall be borne by the plaintiff (selected party) and the plaintiffs.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 도시 및 주거환경정비법(2018. 1. 16. 법률 제15356호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제74조 제1항, 제3항(현행 제74조 제5항 참조) / [2] 행정소송법 제8조 제2항, 민사소송법 제208조 / [3] 행정소송법 제1조[행정처분일반], 제19조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger