A. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s claim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is dismissed.

B. On March 22, 2005, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s ordinary assignment for the remainder of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), except the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) members, and the lawsuit on the claim to confirm the invalidity of the drawing of Dong and Dong number is dismissed.

(c) Ascertainment that there is no reconstruction resolution in accordance with Article 47(3) and (4) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings necessary to reconstruct aggregate buildings and ancillary and welfare facilities on the land listed in the attached list in paragraph 1 of the attached list.

D. On March 22, 2005, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) confirmed that the allocation of a square and the drawing of Dong and Dong units for the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is invalid.

2. The remaining appeal against the counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remainder 10%, respectively, by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) will implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on January 15, 2001 with respect to the real estate stated in attached Table 2 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff Union”).

2. Purport of the counterclaim and purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. On March 22, 2005, it is confirmed that the same judgment as described in paragraph (c) of Article 1 and the ordinary allocation of a sentence and the drawing of a unit for the plaintiff's union members are invalid.

The reasons for the judgment of this court are as follows: "1,033 persons (the plaintiff is 1,036 persons, but three persons are 1,036 persons who submit a written resolution at the time of the general meeting)" in 1028 persons (the plaintiff is 1,036 persons, but the plaintiff is 1,038 through 1035 of evidence No. 28-28, and 47-1 through 8 of evidence No. 47, eight persons, such as non-party 5, non-party 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 112, who submitted a written resolution at the time of the general meeting and submitted a written resolution in duplicate) among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be changed to "1,03 persons (the plaintiff is 1,036 persons who submitted a written resolution at the time of the general meeting)" and "21,000,000 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be deleted from "21," in addition to "14, 2, 25.2," and 4.25.

2. The portion “after the General Assembly of March 5, 2005” as used

1) According to the above facts, the instant management and disposal plan’s resolution constitutes a new rebuilding resolution, as it can be acknowledged that details of the expenses to be borne by the association members, deliberation, and allocation standards for the number of units, etc. based on the modified design contents.

2) Determination as to whether the provision of a special quorum has been violated

A) The parties’ assertion

The Defendant asserts as follows. The instant management and disposal plan resolution adopted at the general meeting on March 5, 2005 is a resolution on rebuilding on January 15, 1995, and on matters concerning the cost sharing and the reversion of sectional ownership, which are not determined by rebuilding resolution on February 28, 2004. Therefore, at least 4/5 of the number of union members and at least 2/3 of the number of association members by applying mutatis mutandis the quorum requirements at the time of rebuilding resolution, and the instant management and disposal plan resolution is null and void since it fails to meet the above special quorum.

For this, the Plaintiff Union asserts as follows. The Articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff Union stipulate the matters concerning the establishment and modification of the management and disposal plan as the resolution of the general meeting. The general meeting provides that the method of resolution of the general meeting shall be held with attendance of a majority of the members, and that the resolution of the instant management and disposal plan shall be valid only if it satisfies the quorum requirements. Even if special quorum is required, the resolution of the instant management and disposal plan shall meet the special quorum, since the agreement rate at the general meeting on March 5, 2005 and the agreement rate at the instant additional written resolution of this case are combined.

B) Determination

(1) In a case where the general meeting of the association members makes a resolution on the apportionment of rebuilding expenses without determining the matters concerning the apportionment of rebuilding expenses at the stage of rebuilding implementation, it shall be interpreted that at least 2/3 of the sectional owners and voting rights in each building, and at least 4/5 of all sectional owners and voting rights, respectively, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the quorum of special number at the time of rebuilding resolution in order to ensure the equity among the opposing interests of the association members (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da15996 delivered on June 26, 1998, etc.). As seen above, the resolution of the management and disposal plan of this case is not properly determined on the apportionment of expenses and the apportionment of sectional ownership in the rebuilding resolution on January 15, 1995 and February 28, 2004. Since it cannot be deemed that there was a resolution that stipulated the above matters prior to the resolution of the management and disposal plan of this case, the resolution of this case requires the resolution of majority at least 4/3 of sectional owners and voting rights.

However, in the resolution for re-building, in light of the fact that the consent to re-building is not easily determined by the sectional owners, and that in the case of re-building through the establishment of a re-building association, even if the written consent is not enforced, in practice, it is not always limited to the first resolution at the meeting of the management body. Even if the first meeting of the management body fails to meet the quorum necessary for re-building, if the number of sectional owners meet the quorum by separately submitting a written consent to re-building in the process of re-building implementation, then the resolution for re-building is valid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da5455, Jun. 24, 2005; 98Da17572, Aug. 20, 199).

(2) As seen earlier, on March 5, 2005, the general meeting held on March 5, 2005, 4,539 of the total sectional owners 6,208 (531 direct participants and 4,008 of the written resolution) and on June to which the Defendant belongs, only 19 of the total sectional owners 30 members (3 direct participants and 16 of the written resolution resolution) failed to meet the special quorum requirements by consenting to the draft management and disposition plan. However, from the above general meeting to July 22, 2005 after the above general meeting, 1,028 members of the association (6 members and 7 of the association) submitted the written resolution of this case. Among the members who participated directly at the general meeting on March 5, 2005 and submitted the written resolution of this case, at least some of the members who participated directly at the general meeting at the general meeting, and as seen earlier, the written resolution of this case does not overlap with 4,008 persons at the general meeting.

According to the above facts, around July 22, 2005, 5,036 of all sectional owners (4,008 + 1,028), i.e., 81.13% (5,036/6207) of all sectional owners (5,036/6207) members met the consent rate of at least 4/5 by consenting to the management and disposition plan of this case. In the case of six consent to which the defendant belongs, 23 of the total sectional owners (16 + 7) consent of at least 2/3 of the total sectional owners (23 of the 30 sectional owners).

(3) Withdrawal of the rebuilding agreement

If a written resolution consenting to the rebuilding resolution over a long-term period is recognized, even if consent to the rebuilding resolution is given in writing, it shall be deemed that the consent to the rebuilding resolution may be withdrawn until the rebuilding resolution is valid.

(3) At least 43 evidence No. 61, 78, 110, 11 Eul, 62-1 through 4, Eul No. 63, 159-2, Eul No. 64, 66, 70, 77, 109-1 and Eul No. 65, 67 through 79, 72, 108, 112 through 154, 162, which included the plaintiff 2's separate resolution No. 40. 2, which included the plaintiff 2's "No. 5's separate resolution No. 3, 50, 200, 200, 205, 300, 205, 300, 40, 205, 205, 30, 40, 205, 30, 205, 205, 30, 30,000.

According to the above facts and the above facts, prior to July 22, 2005, the association members, who withdrawn their consent under the "written resolution", "written confirmation and written resolution", or who expressed their withdrawal intent by participating in a lawsuit seeking nullification of the resolution of the management and disposal plan as the plaintiff or supplementary participant, are 249 (the number of association members who agreed to the written resolution in the management and disposal plan in this case as of July 22, 2005, 7.12% [4,787 (5,036 - 249), 6207)/6207] of the total number of association members [4,787 (5,036 - 249)/6207];

Therefore, the instant management and disposal plan resolution did not have a quorum for 4/5 rebuilding resolution. The Defendant’s above assertion is with merit.

(B) The Plaintiff Union asserts as follows. Article 28(1) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments provides that the consent (including the withdrawal of consent) of the owners of land, etc. under Articles 13 through 16 of the Act shall be made by means of a written consent using a certificate of seal imprint, and in this case, the certificate of seal imprint shall be attached thereto. As such, the withdrawal of consent can only be made in writing prior to the approval of establishment, and the Defendant’s withdrawal

Article 16 (2) of the Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Act provides that "where a committee of promoters of a housing reconstruction project intends to establish an association, it shall obtain authorization of the head of a Si/Gun, along with the consent of at least 2/3 of all sectional owners or voting rights in each Dong (in cases of welfare facilities, the whole welfare facilities within a housing complex shall be deemed one Dong) of collective housing within the housing complex, and the consent of at least 4/5 of all sectional owners or voting rights within the housing complex, and the approval of the articles of association and documents as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. The same shall also apply where it intends to modify any insignificant matter under the proviso of paragraph (1), it may be changed after reporting it to the head of a Si/Gun without the consent of its members, and Article 17 of the same Act provides that "where it intends to establish a association, the method of calculating the consent of owners of land, etc. under the provisions of Articles 13 through 16 of the Act and Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the consent of the ownership to be reverted, etc." shall be attached to the land owner's:

However, the above provisions merely require that a seal imprint be attached to the consent or withdrawal or that a seal imprint be attached to the consent or withdrawal in order to verify the genuine will of the members of the association for rebuilding. It does not necessarily require that consent or withdrawal be affixed with a document accompanied by a seal imprint and that there is an act or appearance to clearly conceal the consent or withdrawal (see Supreme Court Order 2002Hun-Ga12, Mar. 11, 2002). (In addition, according to each of the statements mentioned in No. 22, No. 1 through 409, No. 28-1 through 1036, and No. 36-1 through 525, respectively, and that the consent or withdrawal is a seal imprint, and the consent or withdrawal is not necessarily required to be attached to the written consent of the members of the association at the general meeting at the time of March 5, 2005, and the consent or withdrawal is not required to be attached to the written consent of the members of the association. Therefore, it is not required that the plaintiff's consent is not attached to the written consent.

(C) On March 5, 2005, the Plaintiff Union asserts that if a member claiming withdrawal exercises his/her voting right at the extraordinary general meeting of the Plaintiff Union, he/she cannot withdraw the resolution of the general meeting thereafter. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff Union may withdraw its consent if the resolution of the general meeting fails to meet the resolution requirements. The Plaintiff Union’s assertion above is without merit.

(D) The plaintiff union asserts that the cancellation of written consent on the management and disposal plan of this case after March 5, 2005 can not be recognized as a withdrawal after the authorization was granted for the establishment of the housing association.

In a case where a sectional owner of an aggregate building holds an assembly for a rebuilding resolution and an inaugural general meeting for the establishment of a reconstruction association in the course of a reconstruction project, even if it appears to be a single assembly, the resolution adopted by the managing body meeting composed of each building legally divided into one rebuilding resolution and one reconstruction association establishment act in which the members of a group consisting of the sectional owners (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da1952, 19569, Feb. 23, 2006). According to the above facts, the consent of the management and disposal plan of this case, which constitutes a rebuilding resolution, is not withdrawn, and the consent of the establishment of a reconstruction association is not withdrawn, and even if the housing association is authorized, the consent of the rebuilding association can be withdrawn before the rebuilding resolution is established. The above assertion by the Plaintiff association is without merit.

(E) On April 2005, the Plaintiff Union asserted to the effect that it cannot claim the withdrawal of consent on the resolution of the instant management and disposition plan, since the Plaintiff Union concluded all the agreement on the supply of cooperative members (sale) based on the resolution of the instant management and disposition plan.

However, insofar as the management and disposal plan resolution of this case which constitutes a new rebuilding resolution does not meet the quorum requirements, the plaintiff union cannot enter into a sales contract with its members on the premise that the rebuilding resolution exists, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff union consents to the rebuilding resolution with entering into a sales contract. The above argument of the plaintiff

(f) In the case of the above Seoul High Court 2005Ra234 application for a provisional injunction for the suspension of the effect of the general assembly, the Plaintiff Union asserted that the 34 members of the Plaintiff Union reversed their intention of withdrawal after the change of the president of the Plaintiff Union, thereby re-assigning the instant management and disposition plan, the instant resolution was valid by meeting the special quorum.

According to the evidence Nos. 44-1 through 11, 13-34 of the above evidence, in the case of the Seoul High Court 2005Ra234's provisional injunction application, it may recognize the fact that 33 members, including the non-party 26, who submitted the document "written confirmation of fact", "content Certification", or "Written Application", agree to the instant management and disposition plan around September 2007, and submitted it to the plaintiff association (the plaintiff association asserted that the non-party 27 of the union reversed the withdrawal declaration of intention again and consented to the instant management and disposition plan of this case. However, it is not calculated that the non-party 27 of the union withdrawn the consent when determining whether to meet the quorum in consideration of the withdrawal of the above consent. Thus, it is not problematic whether the non-party 27 of the union members reversed their consent or not).

However, even based on the above facts of recognition, the consent rate on the management and disposal plan of this case is merely 77.65% [4820 persons (5036 persons - 249 persons + 33 persons) /6207 persons]. Thus, the management and disposal plan of this case cannot be deemed to have satisfied the requirements for reconstruction resolution on the ground that the above 33 members consented again to the proposed management and disposal plan of this case. The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. The portion of "the decision on the allocation of a flat among the four counter-actions and the claim to nullify the invalidity of the drawing of Dong and heading water"

(a) consider ex officio;

A lawsuit for confirmation is not necessarily limited to a legal relationship between the parties, but can also be the legal relationship between either party and a third party or between third parties. However, in order to have the interest to confirm the legal relationship, there is a risk or non-existence in the rights or legal status of the claimant, and in order to remove the risk or non-performance, it is necessary to immediately confirm the legal relationship by the judgment for confirmation of the legal relationship, and it should be the most effective and appropriate means. Of the defendant's counterclaim, the part claiming confirmation of the ordinary allocation of the plaintiff association for the plaintiff's members other than the defendant on March 22, 2005 and the invalidity of the drawing of the same and heading shall be limited to the confirmation of the legal relationship between the plaintiff's members other than the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no benefit to seek confirmation. The defendant's counterclaim against this part is unlawful.

B. Determination on the part of the Plaintiff Union’s ordinary allocation of shares against the Defendant and the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the drawing of shares and units

As seen earlier, as long as the instant management and disposition plan is not effective, it is not effective in the ordinary allocation of the Plaintiff Union’s defendant and the drawing of the same heading and uniting.

4. The part "5. Judgment on the Claim for Main Claims" as written after repair

A. The plaintiff union's assertion

Article 5 of the inaugural general meeting of the Plaintiff Union provides for the members of the association with an obligation to contribute in kind, and the Plaintiff Union, a member of the reconstruction association, obtained authorization for establishment from the head of Songpa-gu on January 15, 2001. As such, the Defendant, a member of the reconstruction association, is obligated to cooperate in achieving the purpose of the reconstruction project of the association. As one of its obligations under the articles of association, the obligation to contribute in kind includes the obligation to transfer land owned by the association for the purpose of trust for the smooth implementation of the reconstruction project. In the case of a sectional owner prescribed by the Aggregate Buildings Act, his right to use a site is subject to the disposition of a section for exclusive use, the right to use the site cannot be disposed of, and the reconstruction project is based on the premise of the removal of the house located within the reconstruction area, and the members of the association shall be deemed to have been entrusted with all rights to dispose of the housing, including the removal of the housing portion. Therefore, even if the title of the section for exclusive use is not prescribed in the articles of association.

B. Determination

Since the duty of trust of a union member is also premised on a legitimate rebuilding resolution, so long as the rebuilding resolution is null and void, a request for registration of trust cannot be accepted. In addition, it is against the good faith principle to compel only the obligations of a reconstruction association that fails to meet the reconstruction resolution, the most important premise for the reconstruction project

The rebuilding resolution at the general meeting and the general meeting on January 15, 1995 at the general meeting on February 28, 2004 did not have a resolution on the apportionment of expenses and the reversion of sectional ownership. The resolution at the general meeting on March 5, 2005 at issue did not have a resolution by the majority of not less than 4/5 of all sectional owners and voting rights are as seen earlier. The plaintiff union's principal claim on the management and disposal plan at the general meeting is without merit.

5. Assumed “6. Conclusion” portion

The part of the claim against the plaintiff union against the defendant is unlawful. On March 22, 2005, among the defendant's counterclaims against the plaintiff union, the part of the claim against the plaintiff union except the defendant is unlawful. The part of the claim against the defendant for confirmation that there is no resolution corresponding to Article 47 (3) and (4) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings necessary for rebuilding aggregate buildings and accessory facilities on the land listed in attached Table 1. The judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on a different basis. The decision of the court of first instance is accepted partially by the defendant's appeal and the decision of the court of first instance is revoked. The part of the claim against the plaintiff union is dismissed. The part of the claim against the defendant is accepted. No resolution consistent with Article 47 (3) and (4) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings does not exist. The remaining part of the appeal against the defendant is dismissed.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Kim Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)