[2] In a case where a resolution of re-building at the management body meeting becomes null and void once the resolution of re-building becomes null and void due to a lack of quorum and satisfies the quorum with the written consent, whether such resolution can be deemed as a correction or supplement of the defect of the invalid re-building resolution (negative)

[2] In the event that the resolution of re-building at the management body meeting becomes null and void once the resolution of re-building becomes null and void due to the lack of quorum and satisfies the quorum with the written consent, this is not a remedy or supplement of the defect of the invalid re-building resolution, but a new resolution is a written resolution, separate from the resolution

1. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”)

(a) 1, 2 points;

With respect to a rebuilding resolution by means of a written resolution, consent to the rebuilding resolution may be withdrawn until the rebuilding resolution becomes effective. The expression of consent to the rebuilding resolution, like the expression of consent to the rebuilding resolution, does not necessarily have to be made only in accordance with a specific procedure and method, unless otherwise provided in the union rules or in the articles of incorporation, and it is sufficient that there is an act or appearance that can clearly express the intent to withdraw the rebuilding resolution (see Supreme Court Order 2002Da12, Mar. 11, 2002).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below compiled the evidence cited in its judgment ① Nonparty 1 and 2, who were the members of the non-party 4 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, were required to confirm the facts and documents submitted to the plaintiff association on April 8, 200 and the 11st of the same month, and sent to the plaintiff association by content-proof mail. The fact confirmation was delivered to the plaintiff association around that time. ② The non-party 3 and the 155 members of the non-party 4 and the non-party 4 were the non-party 2's non-party 4 and the non-party 2's non-party 5's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 4 and the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 4 and the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 5's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 25's non-party 3 and the non-party 2's non-party 3

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, if the rebuilding resolution at the management body meeting becomes null and void after the rebuilding resolution becomes null and void due to the lack of the quorum and satisfies the quorum for rebuilding resolution with the written consent, this is not a remedy or supplement of the defect of the invalid rebuilding resolution, but a new written resolution, which is a new resolution, separate from the resolution at the management body meeting (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da55455, Jun. 24, 2005). On a different premise, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the person who appeared on the day of the resolution at the general meeting and expressed his/her intention of consent and the person who presented

(b) Third point;

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that since the members who agreed to the resolution of the management and disposal plan of this case concluded all the contract for the supply of union members (sale) based on the resolution of this case on April 2005, they cannot claim the withdrawal of consent to the resolution of the management and disposal plan of this case, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that unless the resolution of the management and disposal plan of this case which constitutes the new rebuilding resolution does not meet the quorum requirements, the plaintiff union cannot enter into a contract with union members on the premise that the rebuilding resolution of this case was adopted, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff union agreed to the rebuilding resolution with the conclusion of the rebuilding contract. In light of the

(c) Fourth point;

Based on the instant management and disposition plan, the allegation in the grounds of appeal purporting that only the consent on the instant management and disposition plan cannot be unilaterally withdrawn without establishing a new rights and obligations relationship with the Plaintiff Union, which is a new legal act called the conclusion of a contract for sale in lots, based on such a management and disposition plan, is first asserted in the final appeal,

2. As to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”)’s ground of appeal

A lawsuit for confirmation is not necessarily limited to a legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, but can be subject to the legal relationship between the plaintiff and a third party or between third parties. However, according to such legal relationship, the confirmation of such legal relationship is required to be immediately confirmed by the confirmation judgment between the plaintiff and the defendant in order to eliminate the risks and apprehensions existing in the plaintiff's rights or legal status, and the legal relationship causes them. In addition, there is a benefit of confirmation that it becomes the most effective and appropriate means (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da23388 delivered on November 8, 194, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, among the defendant's counterclaim, the part on the plaintiff's ordinary allocation of the plaintiff union for the plaintiff's union members other than the defendant on March 22, 2005 and the part on the plaintiff's right to seek confirmation of invalidity of the Dong and Dong water drawing is merely a confirmation of the legal relations between the plaintiff's union members other than the plaintiff and the defendant, and the judgment of this case cannot be affected by the rights or legal status of the remaining plaintiff's union members other than the defendant. Thus, the above judgment of the court below is just in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, and there is no error of law

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

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)