바카라 게임 사이트

(1) Case background

▷Company B obtained an approval of a residence development plan for the 바카라 게임 사이트 of a residential building consisting of 32 units from the Mayor of the relevant city, and completed the registration of ownership with regard to the 32 units.

▷Thereafter, Company A purchased 31 units out of the 32 units and completed the registration of transfer of ownership.

▷Company A filed a suit against Company B, claiming that Company B was required to take a procedure to change a developer under the plan with regard to the 31 units. The claims made by Company A were accepted by the court.

▷Thereafter, A Company acquired the ownership of the remaining one unit.

▷After acquiring the ownership of all the 32 units, A Company filed an application in which it requested the Mayor to change a developer of the residence 바카라 게임 사이트 project. The Mayor rejected the application on the ground that Company A did not submit a consent made by the previous developer or a similar document in regards to the change of a developer in relation to the remining one unit.

▷Company A made a claim to cancel the Mayor’s rejection.

(2) Lawsuit and our role

The Mayor asserted that in the case of an application for the change of a residence 바카라 게임 사이트 plan, a consent to the change made by the developer or supporting documents regarding the change of the developer is required to be submitted, but Company A had not submitted such documents with regard to the one unit, and therefore, Company A had failed to meet the requirement.

Representing Company A, we asserted that (i) there had been no reasons for the Mayor to reject the application since there was no reason to see that a consent of a former developer was required in relation to an approval of change in a residence 바카라 게임 사이트 plan.

In addition to the assertion above, we pointed out that (a) according to precedents and legal theory, an assignee may file an application for the change of a developer by itself, (b) related statutes such as the Housing Act did not require an applicant to submit a consent of a former developer, and (c) it was difficult to see that an approval for the change of a residence 바카라 게임 사이트 plan caused by the change of a developer was not intended to protect the status or economic interests of a previous developer as a party which had already obtained approval.

(ii) Arguing that the rejection was illegal because the Mayor had abused and deviated from his discretionary power, we pointed out that (a) Company A acquired the ownership of all the 32 units and Company B could not conduct the project any more, (b) it was difficult to find a reason for Company B to hold a right to the one unit, and (c) rather than abandoning the project, allowing Company A to continue to conduct the project would be compatible to public interests.

The administrative court determined that approving a residence 바카라 게임 사이트 plan was within the scope of an administrative agency’s discretionary power, and the administrative agency may decide not to approve the plan, if necessary, for public interests in the case where the plan went against restrictions set forth in the relevant statutes as well as in the case where such restrictions did not exist. However, even in the foregoing cases, the administrative agency would not abuse or be beyond the limitation of the discretionary power.

Accepting all the arguments made by us, the administrative court found that the rejection be cancelled on the ground that (i) the court could not find any ground under which a consent of the previous developer was required to apply for approval of the change of the project plan and (ii) the Mayor had illegally abused and deviated from his discretionary power by rejecting the application without specifically mentioning the necessity of the rejection for pubic interests.

Even though a developer has acquired ownership of all households in a collective building, in the case where the developer fails to obtain a right to develop some households for certain reasons, there are some cases in which an application for change of a developer of the residence 바카라 게임 사이트 project plan is rejected, thereby making it difficult for the developer to proceed with the project.

The decision has an implication in that it confirms that (i) a consent of a former developer is not necessarily required to obtain approval for the change of the developer in a residence 바카라 게임 사이트 plan and (ii) rejecting an application for the change of a developer in a residence 바카라 게임 사이트 plan on the ground of the absence of such consents could be illegal because it could constitute the abuse of or deviation from a discretionary power.