According to the records, Article 62(1), (3), and Article 61(3) applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 62(3) of the Housing Improvement Project Guidelines established in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (amended by June 10, 1994; hereinafter referred to as the "Business Guidelines") may be determined as reserved land and withheld construction facilities within 2% of the total number of apartment units sold by the association members in order to meet additional requirements due to unexpected causes, such as modification of management and disposition plans, civil petition damages, etc. In addition, Article 61(6) of the Housing Improvement Project Guidelines established in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "Business Guidelines"), and Article 61(3) of the same Act provides that the method of disposal shall be decided at the general meeting when the remaining household is less than 20 households after additional appropriation for the withheld facilities, and Article 61(3) of the same Act provides that the remaining method of disposal shall be separately set at the general meeting of the Association or the members of the Association (see Articles 47(3) and 46(5) of the above Act).

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision, and found that the 43-type apartment house, a withholding facility that the defendant purchased in lots, was disposed of at an appropriate price by the resolution of the general meeting if the defendant did not purchase in lots. Therefore, if the 175,986,834 won paid to the redevelopment association with the sale price is less than the estimated price in a case where the defendant disposes of the 1 household of the above withholding facility in a proper manner by the resolution of the general meeting, it is just to have determined that the redevelopment association suffered a loss equivalent to the difference. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of the disposal price of the remaining household after the violation of the rules of evidence, or appropriation of the additional requirements of the withholding facility due to incomplete deliberation,

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The argument in the grounds of appeal is based on the premise that even if the remaining households of the redevelopment association are disposed of by a resolution of the general meeting of the redevelopment association, their disposal price shall always be the same as the sale price at the time of the sale by members and the general meeting. In the case of this case, even if the defendant committed an act of breach of duty, there is no possibility of damages due to the nature of the act, and therefore, there is no awareness of the damage to the defendant. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles

However, as seen earlier, if the remaining household in the withholding facility is less than 20 households, not only the subject and procedure of the disposition, but also the price can be determined arbitrarily by the resolution of the general meeting, and it does not necessarily be subject to the restriction on the sale price at the time of the sale by the union members or the general sale by the union members. In this case, the above argument in the grounds of appeal, which is premised on the premise that the remaining household in the withholding facility is subject to the restriction on the sale price at the time of the sale by the union members or the general sale by the union members, is without merit without any further review (On the other hand, according to the records, if the remaining household in the withholding facility is disposed of less than 20 households,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Kang-won (Presiding Justice)