[Judgment of the court below]

Busan Seo-gu Ddong

Attorney Cho Jae-han, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Preliminary claim: D2 Area Housing Redevelopment Project Cooperatives' promotion committee on July 16, 2005 all residents

Resolution which selects a contractor as A Construction Co., Ltd at the meeting of the Council and the defendant at the ordinary meeting of April 1, 2007

A resolution ratified by the above contractor shall confirm that each of the resolutions is invalid.

A. Status of the parties

The defendant is a housing redevelopment project association under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act"), which has obtained approval from the head of Busan Metropolitan Government on August 11, 2006 for the establishment of a housing redevelopment project with the consent of 712 of the owners of the land, etc. in the project area of this case (referred to as the "project area of this case") in order to implement the housing redevelopment project for the 842 lots in Busan Seo-gu Down-gu Do (hereinafter referred to as the "project area of this case"), and the plaintiffs are the owners of the land, etc. in the project area of this case.

(b) Details of written consent for establishment;

The main contents of the written consent for the establishment of the association (hereinafter referred to as the "written consent of this case") that the defendant received from the land owners are as follows.

(1) The estimated cost of removal and construction of a new building (2) the estimated cost of removal and construction of the building (3) the association shall be charged and collected in accordance with the articles of incorporation of the association; (2) the final settlement at the time of the management and disposal of the property owned by the association; and (3) the final settlement at the time of the liquidation of the association shall assess the value of the property owned by the association as prescribed by the articles of association; and (3) the cost of the construction and all expenses related to the project to be paid to the project shall be charged equally for the expenses and profits in accordance with the standards for management and disposal prescribed by the articles of association of the association in accordance with the principle of equity; and (3) the cost of the construction and all expenses related to the project shall

Equitable sharing.

C. The promotion committee for housing redevelopment project in Zone D2 (hereinafter referred to as the "promotion committee of this case") is 2005.

7. On April 1, 2007, a general meeting of residents is held to select A Construction Co., Ltd. as a contractor, and the defendant is on April 1, 2007.

A general meeting held a general meeting and passed a resolution to confirm the selection of the executor of the general meeting.

(d) the relevant provisions;

As shown in the attached Form.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

① Under the former Urban Improvement Act, in order to establish a housing redevelopment project association, the consent of at least 4/5 of the owners of the land, etc. in the project zone shall be obtained, and the number of consenters shall be at least 4/5 of the owners of the land and buildings separate from each other, but the Defendant Union merely obtained the consent of at least 82.69% of the total number of owners of the land and buildings, and the consent of the establishment of the association at that time does not stipulate the cost-bearing items that can predict the amount of the share to be borne by the future members of the association. Thus, the establishment of the Defendant Union based on the

B. The Defendant’s assertion (1) there is no basis for calculating the number of consenters, such as land for the establishment of a housing redevelopment association, in the manner as alleged by the Plaintiff. (2) In the case of reconstruction under the former Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Aggregate Buildings Act”), the consent is required not only to the resolution of the owners of land, etc. but also to establish a reconstruction project or a redevelopment project by the enactment of the Urban Improvement Act, in order to establish a redevelopment project or a redevelopment project. (2) In the case of a redevelopment project, the housing owners and the land owners are mixed, and the value of the property is too diverse, so it can be possible to specify the cost-sharing amount after individual appraisal of the value of each property of the owners of land, such as land after the establishment of the redevelopment project, and it is practically impossible to determine the cost-sharing amount at the time of the establishment of the redevelopment project association. Therefore, the provisions of Article 26(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings do not need to determine the cost-sharing amount, and it is possible to determine the consent form and method.

3. Determination

A. Whether the calculation of the quorum for consent is unlawful

In full view of the provisions of Article 2 subparagraph 9 (a) and Article 16 of the former Act and Article 28 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, when a housing redevelopment project association is established, the consent of at least 4/5 of the entire landowners, etc. (the owners or superficies of land or buildings) shall be obtained, and in addition, the consent of at least 4/5 of the landowners and building owners shall not be considered to have been obtained respectively. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit without any further need.

(b) Whether expenses to be borne for consenting to the establishment of the association have been determined;

According to Article 16(1) of the former Act and Article 26(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, when a housing redevelopment project association is to be established, (1) the outline of the design of the building to be built, (2) the outline of the expenses required for the removal and new construction of the building, and (3) the matters concerning the apportionment of the expenses shall be subject to the consent of the owners of the land, etc. by a written consent stating the matters that meet the requirements for reconstruction resolution in the reconstruction project under the former Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, and the above provisions apply by expanding the matters that meet the requirements for reconstruction resolution to the housing redevelopment project

Since it is necessary to establish the allocation or calculation basis to the extent that it does not reach an agreement on the cost allocation again at the stage of redevelopment, the consent form which does not specify it can not be recognized as effective, and the establishment of an association based on it shall be null and void.

However, as seen earlier, the written consent of this case includes the total floor space and size of a new building, the total cost of removal, and new construction cost are estimated, and the expenses are imposed and collected according to the association's articles of association regarding the cost-bearing, and the value of the property owned by the association members is calculated as prescribed by the association articles of association and allocated equally the expenses and profits in accordance with the standards for management and disposal prescribed by the association articles of association in accordance with the principle of equity. However, even if the provisions of the association articles of association are neglected, these standards are too abstract, and it is difficult to estimate the cost-bearing amount to be borne by the landowners at the time of the establishment of the association, so it is difficult to predict the cost-bearing amount to be borne by the landowners at the time of the establishment of the association, and there is no evidence to recognize that the owner of the land at the time of preparation of the written consent was able to determine whether to participate in redevelopment, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the Defendant provided information on it to the owners of the land at the time of preparation of the written consent.

Therefore, the consent of this case cannot be recognized as valid, and the establishment of the defendant association based thereon shall be deemed as null and void.

The Defendant’s assertion is impossible to compute the cost burden in general at the time of establishing the redevelopment project due to the nature of the redevelopment project, and can specify the matters concerning the cost burden only at the time of authorization of the management and disposal plan. Therefore, it is sufficient to establish the consent of this case or the articles of association. However, even before the redevelopment project is established, it is impossible or considerably difficult to specify the matters concerning the cost burden at the time of establishing the redevelopment project because it is possible to select a rearrangement project management contractor and seek advice, etc., even before the redevelopment project is established. Since the quorum necessary for establishing the redevelopment project (4/5 of the landowners, etc.) and the quorum for resolution of the management and disposal plan (a majority of the union members present at the articles of association) are considerably different, it cannot be seen that the defect at the time of establishing the redevelopment project by resolution of the management and disposal plan is cured. In light of the fact that the association members who agreed to establish the redevelopment project and lose their base for livelihood without knowledge of the cost burden are unable to cope with the redevelopment cost, and the above Defendant’s assertion cannot be justified.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is acceptable for reasons.

Judges fixed-term

Judges Jong-ho