1. Article 14(1)2 and Article 14(2) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9401 of Jan. 30, 2009; hereinafter “former Act”) provides that when the Promotion Committee for the Establishment of Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Projects (hereinafter “Promotion Committee”) selects a rearrangement project management contractor, it shall be made by means of competitive bidding prescribed by the operating regulations, while Articles 14(3) and 17 of the same Act and Article 23(1)2(a) and (2), and 28(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20947 of Jul. 29, 2008) shall obtain written consent with the seal imprint affixed by a majority of landowners, such as land owners who consented to the composition of the Promotion Committee prior to performing the said duties.

Meanwhile, according to the Defendant’s operational regulations, the selection of a management entity specialized in improvement projects under the former Act is made by the resolution of a resident’s general meeting, except as otherwise expressly provided for in the former Act or the operational regulations, the resident’s general meeting is opened with attendance of a majority of landowners who have agreed to organize the promotion committee; the resident’s general meeting is held with the consent of a majority of the owners of the land, etc. (including the owners of the land, etc. who have not consented thereto); and the landowner, etc. may exercise voting rights in writing or by proxy. Such resolution of the resident’s general meeting is a procedure separate from the consent of the owners of the land, etc. under Article 14(3) of the former Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93299, Feb. 15, 2010). Thus, it is sufficient that the above resolution of the resident general meeting meets the requirements for resolution under the Defendant’s operational regulations, unlike the requirements required for consent under Article 17 of the former Act and Article 28(4) of the Enforcement Decree thereof.

2. The court below held that, as stipulated in Article 22 of the defendant's operational regulations, it is sufficient to hold a resident general meeting of July 17, 2008 to select a specialized management businessman of rearrangement projects with the attendance of a majority of the owners of the land, etc. who agreed to organize the promotion committee, and make a resolution with the consent of the majority of the owners, including the land, etc. who attended the meeting, including the owner who did not consent thereto, as stipulated in Article 22 of the defendant's operational regulations, and the resident general meeting of this case attended 497, which is a majority of 664 owners, including the land, etc. who agreed to organize the promotion committee, and met the quorum. Since 479 of the total members, including the land, etc. who did not consent to the composition of the promotion committee, agree to the agenda of this case, the resolution of this case was valid, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the selection of this case is invalid because the resolution of this case falls short of the quorum.

According to the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the quorum or method of resolution by a resident general meeting for the selection of a specialized management businessman.

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

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)