2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant, and the costs of incidental appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs, respectively.

The defendant's management and disposal plan authorized by the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on January 27, 2015 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiffs shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the management and disposition plan approved by the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on January 27, 2015.

A. The apartment complex 1, 2, and 324 units (hereinafter “instant apartment complex”) on the land of Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu and 345 (Gamdong) is composed of 134 apartment buildings, 6,600 households, and 1, 324 stores (hereinafter “instant commercial building”). The Defendant Union is a reconstruction association established for the reconstruction project of the instant apartment complex on June 12, 2003 (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”).

B. Of the members of the Defendant Union, the sectional owners of the instant commercial building, including the Plaintiffs, established a shopping district council for the Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “the shopping district council”) in order to promote the reconstruction of the instant commercial building in accordance with the so-called independent settlement method. Plaintiff 1 is the president of the shopping district council, Plaintiff 2, and Plaintiff 3 are the general affairs of the shopping district council.

C. On May 24, 2003, the sectional owners of the apartment complex of this case held the inaugural general meeting of the defendant association and claimed that the above rebuilding resolution was null and void, while some members of the association, they held a general meeting of the defendant association on June 26, 2004 and held at the 2/3 or more of the sectional owners and voting rights of the apartment complex of this case, and held at the 2/3 or more of the sectional owners and voting rights of each of the apartment complexes of this case, and made a rebuilding resolution which again contains the following contents (hereinafter referred to as the "renovation resolution of this case") by meeting the requirements of 2/3 or more of the sectional owners and voting rights of all the sectional owners of this case and voting rights of the

2. Resolution of reconstruction and project implementation consent included in the main sentence; 2. Matters concerning the removal of buildings and the sharing of cost; 2. Method of flat application and allocation of existing apartment (building) owners - in order of the share of rights, taking into account the usual type of apartment (building price), building, location, number of floors, etc. of the apartment (building price) owned by the association members if there is competition, the sale price of new apartment (building price) shall be determined in comparison with the appraisal price of the existing apartment (building price) - The sale price of new apartment (building price) shall be determined by calculating the arithmetic mean of the appraisal value of the two appraisal and assessment institutions - the apportionment of expenses shall be determined by the appraisal price of the existing apartment (building price) and the detailed calculation criteria for the allotment of rights by multiplying the appraised value of the existing apartment (building price) by the proportion to the appraisal value of the existing apartment (building price) owner; 3. The appraisal price of the previous land and building owned by the association shall be determined by the association's association's association's articles of incorporation and the appraisal price of association shall be determined by the association.

D. On June 17, 2013, the Defendant Cooperative entered into a business agreement (hereinafter “instant business agreement”) with the shopping district council, and ratified the instant business agreement with the consent of 5,600 members from among 6,830 members of the entire general meeting held on July 15, 2013 (80.87%) and 227 members from among 283 members of the commercial district association (80.21% of the consent rate). The main contents of the instant business agreement are as follows.

1. Table 1. The Cooperatives and the Commercial Building Council shall mutually cooperate with each other in accordance with the "Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents" and all relevant regulations, and the association's articles of association, and the development gains of the commercial building and the burden of expenses incurred in the commercial building reconstruction (such as all the project expenses and operating expenses of the commercial building council) shall be reverted to the members of the commercial building: Provided, That the project expenses incurred in the reconstruction project shall be separately calculated from apartment, and the joint expenses incurred in the reconstruction project shall be settled in consultation and settlement at the time of the progress of the project, and the joint project expenses shall be settled at the time of the management and disposal. 3. The project expenses incurred in the reconstruction project shall be settled in accordance with the association's articles of association, such as the plan for construction of the commercial building in the commercial building in the commercial building in the commercial building in the city of the project in the new project: Provided, That the decision-making process for the reconstruction of the commercial building in accordance with the plan (the sale area, timing, sale price price, interior, design, purpose, construction structure, additional construction expenses, etc.

E. Pursuant to the instant business agreement, the commercial council prepared a self-plan for the disposition of commercial building management (hereinafter “instant plan”) and resolved on it by the council of the commercial council. On October 29, 2014, notified the Defendant Union that the instant plan for the disposition of commercial building management and disposition was resolved by the council of representatives, and sent a special meeting book containing the instant plan for the disposition of commercial building management and disposition, but the Defendant Union returned it to the commercial council on November 4, 2014.

F. After that, on November 19, 2014, the commercial council held an extraordinary general meeting and 154 of the members of the entire commercial building agreed to consent to the proposed commercial building management and disposition plan of this case (54.03% of the consent rate).

G. Accordingly, on November 24, 2014, the commercial council notified the Defendant Cooperative of the formulation of the instant plan for the management and disposition of the commercial building of its own after the resolution of the special meeting, and again sent the proposal for the instant plan for the management and disposition of the commercial building. On November 28, 2014, the commercial council sent the minutes of the special meeting of the commercial council containing the content that the resolution was made with the consent of 154 persons among all 285 members of the commercial building. On December 1, 2014, the Defendant Cooperative requested the Defendant Cooperative to send the documents proving that the instant plan for the management and disposition of the commercial building was established by reflecting the intent of the members of the commercial association.

H. On December 9, 2014, the Defendant Mutual Association held a general meeting of shareholders on December 10, 2014, and resolved on the “case of approval on the management and disposition plan (hereinafter “instant management and disposition plan”)” as an agenda item 10. The head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approved the instant management and disposition plan on January 27, 2015, and announced it as the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Public Notice No. 2015-7 on January 29, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, Eul's evidence Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. According to the instant business agreement, the Defendant Union promised to proceed with reconstruction by means of an independent settlement system, and accordingly, the authority to establish the management and disposal plan concerning the portion of the instant commercial building exists in the commercial council. However, as the Defendant Union has formulated the instant management and disposal plan that goes against the instant management and disposal plan regarding the ownership of the new commercial building, proportional ratio, and allocation standards of liquidation money, without submitting or reflecting the draft of the instant management and disposal plan formulated by the commercial building council at the general meeting of the members of the association. As such, the instant management and disposal plan was unlawful.

B. In formulating the instant management and disposal plan, the Defendant Union assessed the prices of the previous assets of its members on the basis of the date of first public announcement of project implementation authorization under Article 48(1)4 of the Urban Improvement Act, however, as of January 2, 2014, the date of public announcement of project implementation authorization. As such, the instant management and disposal plan was unlawful since it violated the provisions of the said Act.

C. The Defendant Union failed to notify the members of the “matters of approximate charges” under Article 46(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas when notifying the application for parcelling-out. Thus, the instant management and disposal plan in violation of the said Act is unlawful.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant management and disposition plan

A. Whether the management and disposal plan of this case is unlawful against the business agreement of this case and the commercial building management and disposal plan of this case

1) The validity of the instant business agreement

A) Article 8(2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 12640, May 21, 2014; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) provides that a housing reconstruction project may be implemented by a cooperative or jointly implemented by a cooperative with the consent of a majority of its members. Article 24(3)10 provides that a management and disposal plan shall be established and amended by the general meeting of the cooperative. Article 48(1) provides that a project implementer shall establish a management and disposal plan based on the current status of application for parcelling-out at the time of termination of the period for application for parcelling-out and obtain authorization from the head of Si/Gun. Thus, where a reconstruction association is a project implementer for a housing reconstruction project, the right to establish a management and disposal

(4) Even if the right to establish a management and disposal plan exists to a rebuilding association, (i) the management and disposal plan under Article 48 (2) 1 of the Urban Improvement Act provides that the housing site or structure should be distributed to applicants for parcelling-out and used rationally by comprehensively taking into account the size, use status, environment, and other matters of the previous land or building; (ii) where the reconstruction association consists of apartment members and the members of the commercial building association, which is irrelevant to the interests of the members, determines matters concerning the ownership of new commercial building prices due to the exercise of voting rights, etc., and unreasonable results may occur to the members of the commercial building, the contents related to the commercial building in the management and disposal plan are necessary to be decided by the members of the commercial building in order to protect the interests of the members of the commercial building; (iii) even if the contents of the management and disposal plan are separately decided on the newly-built housing improvement plan, it is difficult for the members of the commercial building association to separately consider the development gains, expenses, etc. from the commercial building reconstruction association or the association's independent project.

B) In accordance with the aforementioned legal principles, as seen earlier, the main contents of the instant business agreement entered into between the Defendant Cooperative and the Commercial Building Association shall revert to the members of the commercial building. The establishment of the management and disposal plan of the commercial building, including the decision-making for the reconstruction of the commercial building according to the plan, the method of disposing of the business profits of the commercial building, the settlement of the amount, etc., shall be managed by the Commercial Building Council. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant business agreement has agreed on an independent settlement system to ensure that the members of the commercial building represented by the commercial council can autonomously reconstruct the commercial building within the extent that it does not conflict with the entire reconstruction project, and to vest the profits and risks arising from the reconstruction of the commercial building in the commercial building to the members of the commercial building. Furthermore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant Cooperative lawfully concluded the instant management and disposal plan on July 15, 2013, by satisfying the requirements for changing the establishment of the association under Article 16(2) of the Act on the Management and Disposal of the Commercial Building in question.

2) Article 7(2) of the instant management and disposition plan

A) According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 5, with respect to the criteria for allocating (supply) the number of floors and units of the newly constructed shopping mall under Article 6 (2) of the plan for the management and disposal of the commercial building of this case, "the number of floors of the newly constructed shopping mall shall be allocated according to the existing shopping mall's floor, and the number of units shall be allocated in order of the average of the average of the number of units calculated by two certified appraisal corporations." On the other hand, with respect to the criteria for the supply (sale) of neighborhood living facilities (sale) in Article 7 (2) of the plan for the management and disposal of this case, "the number of floors of the newly constructed shopping mall shall be given priority to the members of the existing commercial mall, and the right applying the proportion to the previous appraisal value in the case of the number of units of the same story shall be assigned in order of high interest. Thus, according to the above facts of recognition, the criteria for allocating the number of houses stipulated in the plan for the management and disposal of this case was formulated differently from the criteria set in the plan.

B) As to the assertion and determination of the Defendant Union

(1) The defendant union's assertion

The Commercial Building Council cannot establish a plan for the management and disposal of commercial buildings different from the matters set forth in the rebuilding resolution of this case, and if it intends to establish a plan for the management and disposal of commercial buildings different from the rebuilding resolution of this case, it is necessary to apply Article 16(2) of the Urban Improvement Act by analogy to the consent of at least 2/3 of the members of the commercial building. However, even though the rebuilding resolution of this case was adopted to determine the allocation of ownership of the newly constructed commercial building prices in the order of the "share of rights", the rebuilding plan of this case is against the rebuilding resolution of this case because the standards for the allocation of the newly constructed commercial building prices shall be determined in the order of higher appraisal than the "share of rights" rather than the "share of rights", and it is against the rebuilding resolution of this case, and the matters concerning the ownership ownership of the newly constructed commercial building owners in the rebuilding plan of this case were not effective. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the management and disposal plan of this case was unlawful on the ground that the allocation standards of housing units set forth in the rebuilding plan of

(2) Determination

(A) The rebuilding resolution of this case is stipulated as follows under the title of 2-C. 2, "an application for deliberation on the owner of an existing apartment (or virtual apartment) and a method of allocation" in Article 2-3(2) of the 2-C. The rebuilding resolution of this case is stipulated as "in the order of the share of the right, taking into account the usual type, building, location, number of floors, etc. of the apartment owned by the association members if competition occurs after filing an application by the association members." However, the rebuilding resolution of this case is not only the "matters on the reversion of ownership of a new apartment (a new apartment)" but also the "matters on the removal and sharing of the building" of the "matters on the method of equal allocation of the building (a)" but also the "matters on the method of equal allocation of the number of new apartment (a)" in Article 2-4(d) of the 2-C. In light of the following, it is difficult to see that the rebuilding resolution of this case has separate provisions on the "matters on the allotment of sectional ownership of the new apartment (2).

Rather, the rebuilding resolution of this case has a title "matters concerning the reversion of sectional ownership of a newly constructed building" in subparagraph 4 (d) of Article 2-4, and its subordinate provisions (1) shall be determined in the order of the application for parcelling-out and the amount of the previous rights, and the decision of the unit and number of houses shall be made in accordance with the electronic lottery. However, if there is competition, the provisions concerning the reversion of ownership of a newly constructed apartment, "in accordance with the management and disposition plan, such as the amount of share in the association's articles of association, etc., if the competition occurs, the matters concerning the reversion of appurtenant welfare facilities such as a virtual price, etc., shall be decided after consultation with the commercial association members when establishing a management and disposition plan in accordance with the previous rights." Thus, it is reasonable to view that the matters concerning the reversion of ownership of a newly constructed building is the contents of Article 2-2 (d) (2)

Therefore, in order to implement the contents that “the matters concerning the attribution of the shops shall be decided after consultation with the members of the commercial building,” which are the matters stipulated in Article 2-d. 2-d. 2 of the rebuilding resolution of this case, the defendant association and the commercial building council established a management and disposition plan concerning the commercial building by concluding the business agreement of this case, and accordingly, the commercial building council prepared the plan, so long as the commercial building management and disposition plan of this case was prepared by the commercial building council, the matters concerning the attribution of the ownership of the newly-built shop in the plan for the rebuilding management

(B) Even if the matters pertaining to the ownership ownership of a new commercial building among the instant commercial building management plan violates Article 2-c. 2-2 of the rebuilding resolution, it is possible to revise the matters set forth in the rebuilding resolution as a resolution of the general meeting of association members meeting meeting the requirements for consent at the time of the rebuilding resolution, and as seen earlier, the instant business agreement was entered into with the Defendant Union and the commercial building council to supervise the establishment of the plan for the management and disposal of a commercial building, including the matters relating to the ownership ownership of a newly constructed commercial building, after obtaining consent of at least 80% of the total association members and commercial building members in excess of the requirements for the consent at the time of the rebuilding resolution, the contents set forth in Article 2-c. 2-2 of the rebuilding resolution of this case were modified to the contents set forth in the instant business agreement. Accordingly, as long as the instant plan was formulated based on the business agreement of this case, the matters relating to ownership ownership of a newly constructed commercial building in the rebuilding plan cannot be deemed to violate the rebuilding resolution of this case.

(C) Meanwhile, Article 24 Subparag. 6 of the Urban Improvement Act provides that a management and disposal plan may be formulated and amended with the consent of a majority of the members. In the special meeting of November 19, 2014, the commercial council has obtained the consent of a majority of the members of the commercial building on the instant commercial management and disposal plan at the special meeting of November 19, 2014, as seen earlier. Thus, the instant plan for the commercial management and disposal of the commercial building cannot be deemed to have been established in violation of the procedures stipulated by the relevant statutes,

3) The pro rata ratio of commercial areas stipulated in Article 6 of the Management and Disposal Plan of this case

(A) On March 5, 2014, when the Defendant Union established the instant management and disposition plan, the Plaintiffs asserted that the proportion of the portion of the commercial building is unfairly lower than that of the sales revenue (304,876,59,000 won) of the commercial building estimated at the time of the public announcement of the application for unit purchase and the alteration of the square plan (304,839,102,000 won) and the total sales revenue (304,839,102,000 won) of the commercial building predicted at the time of the examination of the appropriateness of estimated contributions on April 14, 2014 by the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the total sales revenue (302,324,834,00 won) of the commercial building predicted at the time of the establishment of the instant management and disposition plan.

(B) According to the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 5, the proportion ratio of the commercial building portion as stipulated in the disposition plan of this case is 135.15%, while the proportion ratio of the commercial building portion as stipulated in the disposition plan of this case is 103.3564%. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, 7, and 8 are merely the estimate of the estimated amount based on the appraiser's advice at the time of the public announcement of the application for parcelling-out and the appropriateness of the estimated contributions, and the total amount of sales revenue of the commercial building estimated by the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government at the time of examining the appropriateness of the estimated contributions. In formulating the disposition plan of this case, in calculating the proportion based on the total revenue estimated by the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, as seen above, it is expected that the proportion calculated based on the newly calculated total sales revenue through appraisal at the time of the establishment of the disposition plan of this case will have been altered, and the defendant Union calculated the proportion ratio of the previous commercial building portion by requesting appraisal.

4) Article 13 subparag. 5 of the instant management and disposition plan: (a) where there is liquidation money after completion of the project, the part stating that “where there is liquidation money after completion of the project, it shall be paid to the members of the association at the time of dissolution (based

(A) The instant business agreement entered into an independent settlement system with the instant apartment and commercial building, and the instant business management and disposal plan established pursuant to the instant business agreement contained the content that the commercial building members would independently settle the development gains of the instant commercial building and the expenses incurred in rebuilding the commercial building. However, according to the evidence No. 5, Article 13(5) of the instant management and disposal plan provides that “if there is a liquidation money after completion of the business, it shall be paid to the members of the instant business at the time of dissolution (based on the announcement of transfer) in proportion to the amount of their previous rights.” However, if the liquidation money is distributed pursuant to the above provision, the development gains of the instant commercial part were distributed to the apartment members, and thus, it was unlawful in violation of the instant business agreement and the business management and disposal plan that decided to independently settle the development gains and rebuilding expenses.

(B) On this issue, the Defendant Union argues that Article 13(5) of the above Act does not violate the business agreement or the business management and disposal plan of this case, since the management and disposal plan of this case provides that the value of the previous assets and the sales revenue shall be clearly assessed for each apartment and commercial building (Article 4 and 5), and that the proportion shall be separately determined for each apartment and commercial building (Article 6), and that the project cost of this case shall be settled independently, and Article 13(5) of the above Act provides that the aforementioned management and disposal plan of this case shall be systematically examined.

However, when interpreting Article 13(5) of the above provision in accordance with the language and text, if there is any remaining property at the time of completion of the project, it is understood that the remaining property should be settled in proportion to the previous amount of rights without distinction between the apartment partner and the shop partner (it is reasonable to deem that the above provision is unlawful against the principle of clarity since it has a possibility to cause a new dispute later between the commercial partner and the apartment partner in light of the importance of the management and disposition plan that directly affects the rights of the association member.)

5) As to Article 13(8) of the Management and Disposal Plan of this case, the structure of the shopping mall and the location of the sale of the commercial mall in general, after the deliberation of the board of directors prior to the sale of the commercial building after the approval of the management and Disposal Plan, the portion concerning the allocation of the changed association members and the general sale of the commercial building shall be adjusted to the MD composition established after the deliberation of the board of

The fact that the Business Convention of this case had the Commercial Building Council establish a management and disposal plan including the "MD composition" of the newly-built commercial store, as seen earlier. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in the evidence Nos. 3 and 5, the plan of the commercial building management and disposal plan of this case specified the part of the union members and the part of the general sale through drawings among the number of newly-built commercial building units through the ground plan of each floor. Article 13 subparag. 8 of the Management and Disposal Plan of this case provides that the structure of the commercial building of this case and the location of the union members and the general sale of the commercial building of this case shall be adjusted to the MF structure finalized after the deliberation by the board of directors prior to the sale after the approval of the management and disposal plan, and the allocation of the changed MF structure of the commercial building shall be governed by the resolution of the board of directors, and the board of directors of the defendant's association may recognize the fact that the newly-built commercial building consist of one member and five members

Since the value of the commercial building is determined according to the location and type of business of the store, it seems that the location of the MD structure and the commercial building for general sale is directly connected to the interests of the commercial union members, and the purport of the instant business agreement is to stipulate that the commercial building management and disposal plan, including MD structure, should be established by the commercial union members. However, although the draft of the commercial building management and disposal plan of this case has already been specified through the drawing, the instant management and disposal plan of this case should be determined through the deliberation or resolution of the board of directors of the defendant association, which accounts for the majority of the apartment union members, by stipulating that the location of the commercial building management and disposal plan of this case shall be determined by the resolution of the board of directors of the defendant association, which has been disadvantageous to the commercial union members. Therefore, the content of Article 13(8) of the instant management and disposal plan of this

6) Sub-decisions

Therefore, among the management and disposal plan of this case, Article 7 Section 2 of the "Standards for the Supply of Neighborhood Living Facilities (SP)", Article 13 Section 5 of the "where there is a liquidation money after completion of the business (the criteria for the public announcement of transfer), the portion "where there is any residual property, the association members shall pay in proportion to the amount of their previous rights at the time of dissolution (the criteria for the public announcement of transfer)", Article 13 Section 8 of the "No. 7 of the Management and Disposal Plan, and the location of the sale of commercial buildings, after the deliberation of the board of directors before and after the approval of the management and disposal plan, shall be adjusted to the MD structure finalized after the deliberation of the board of directors before the sale of the commercial buildings, and the portion "the division of the ownership of the changed commercial buildings by union members and the general

B. Whether the instant management and disposal plan is unlawful due to the error in the time of assessing the previous assets

Article 48(1)4 of the Urban Improvement Act provides that a management and disposal plan shall be formulated by evaluating the price of the previous land or structure subject to parcelling-out based on the “date the authorization for project implementation has been publicly announced.” However, when a management and disposal plan is formulated, the reason for assessing the price of the previous assets is to determine the standards for the balanced distribution of individual members’ contributions to the project cost determined (where a partnership apartment is sold in lots with the same apartment price, the association members with low pre-sale price shall bear an individual contribution higher than the pre-sale price of the previous assets). Thus, it cannot be deemed that the previous assets shall not be assessed as of the date of the first public announcement of project implementation, and it is reasonable to deem that it is possible to assess the previous assets based on the date of public announcement of project implementation authorization after a resolution by the general meeting of the association members (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du13294, Oct. 29, 2015, which is presented by the plaintiffs, is unreasonable even if the first public announcement of project implementation authorization was made based on the date).

However, according to the purport of Gap evidence 2 and Eul evidence 9 and the whole purport of the arguments, the defendant union held a general meeting on July 15, 2013, and decided to revise all statutes, regulations, etc. related to reconstruction with the consent of 89.31% of the members, with the consent of 89.31% of the members, after changing the previous evaluation base date. In formulating the management and disposal plan of this case, it is recognized that the previous asset price was assessed as of January 2, 2014. Thus, it is difficult to deem that the management and disposal plan of this case evaluated the previous asset price as of the date of the public notice of the approval for the change of the project implementation, rather than the date of the initial public notice of the approval for the change of the project implementation. Accordingly, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without

C. Whether the management and disposal plan of this case is unlawful due to the defect in the procedure for notifying the application for parcelling-out

It is insufficient to recognize that the defendant union failed to notify the members of the "matters of summary charges" in notifying the application for parcelling-out to the members for parcelling-out. Rather, according to the whole purport of the entries and arguments in Eul No. 16, the defendant union notified the members of the application for parcelling-out around April 2008 and notification of the "matters of summary charges" by notifying the members of the application for parcelling-out and the application for alteration of deliberation around March 2014. Thus, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal and the incidental appeal by the plaintiffs are without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Goung-hun (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)