2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The following facts are without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 2-1 through 18 (each building management ledger), Gap evidence 3-1, 2, 4-1, 5-1, 6-1 through 14 (each union minutes), Gap evidence 7 (each union’s list), Gap evidence 10-1 through 17 (Peremptory Notice), Gap evidence 11-1 through 12-17 (Peremptory Notice), Gap evidence 13-1, 2, 3 (each family register copy), Gap evidence 14-1 through 94, Gap evidence 16-1, 16-1 through 14, Gap evidence 7 (each union’s list of union members), Gap evidence 11-1 through 17 (Peremptory Notice), Gap evidence 13-1, 14-1 through 94, Gap evidence 16-1, 18-2, 19-1, and 3-2, 19-3, 10-2, and 19-3.

A. Five units of 94 units of 5 unit of 5 unit of 5 units of 5 units of 5 units of 5 units of 5 units of 15-38 and 39 units of 5 units of 5 units of 5 units of 5 units of 94 units of 5 units of 5 units of 5 units of 5 units of 15-dong, Incheon, (24 units of 5 units of 5 units of 14 units of 5 units of 5 units of 5 units of 5 units of 5 units of 5 units of 5 units of 1991, the head of 5 units of 5 units of 5 units of 5 units of 1991, the head of 5 units of 5 units of 195 units of 19 units of 5 units of 19 units of 19 units of 5 units of 5 units of 5 units of 199 units of 19 units of 19 units of 5 units of 190 units of 2.

B. However, the above tenement house owner of 202 house (attached Form 1.1.), Kim Young-jin, 205 house owner of 205 (real estate listed in attached Table 1.2.), defendant Park Jong-young, 302 house owner of 302 (real estate listed in attached Table 1.3.), the non-party housing owner of 306 house, the non-party housing owner of 303 house, the non-party housing owner of 103 house, the non-party 4 house owner of 107 house (attached Table 2.3), the non-party Kim Jin-jin, the non-party 207 house owner of 4, the non-party 4, the non-party 106 house owner of 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 107 house owner of the above real estate (the real estate owner of 1.2, the real estate list), the defendant Kim Jin-jin's new house owner's list of 207, the real estate owner.3

C. On November 15, 1995, the plaintiff union issued a peremptory notice to encourage the plaintiff union to join the plaintiff union and participate in the re-building on three occasions, including the defendants and the defendants who did not agree to the re-building project on the order of the inside house, yellow wale, and shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot, etc., but the defendants and the non-party shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot s.

D. Meanwhile, on July 9, 1996, the Plaintiff Union obtained approval of the housing construction project plan necessary for the said reconstruction project from the head of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government.

2. Judgment on the assertion

A. The parties' assertion

According to Articles 47 and 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings"), the owner of an aggregate building can implement the reconstruction project with the consent of at least 4/5 thereof. In this case, if there is a person who does not participate in the reconstruction among the sectional owners, the owner of an aggregate building can request the owner who did not participate in the reconstruction from the sectional owner to sell the sectional ownership at the market price. In addition, the owner of an aggregate building can claim that the owner of the sectional owner who did not participate in the reconstruction should sell the sectional ownership at the market price. In order to resolve the reconstruction project and promote the said project, 75 persons who were at least 4/5 of the owners of five divided owners of five divided owners of the non-building units of this case from among the 93 divided owners of the non-building units of this case establish the plaintiff association and obtain authorization for the establishment of the reconstruction association in the name of the plaintiff association, but did not reply to the intent to participate in the reconstruction within 2 months.

As to this, the defendants asserted that the rebuilding resolution of this case did not go through legitimate procedures for convening a meeting of the management body, and did not set forth the outline of rebuilding plan under Article 47 (3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, and that it does not meet the requirements of resolution by a majority of not less than 4/5 of the sectional owners and voting rights by each Dong, and therefore, it is invalid, and that the plaintiff union's right to demand sale against the defendants of the plaintiff union is invalid because it did not go through legitimate procedures for deciding whether to participate in rebuilding.

(b) Determination (whether the requirements for a special majority are met);

(1) Article 47 of the Aggregate Buildings Act provides that "If the building is damaged or partly destroyed after a considerable period of time has elapsed since its construction, or excessive cost of repair, restoration, or management is required compared to its price under other circumstances, or re-building brings a remarkable increase of utility compared with the cost required therefor due to a change in neighboring land use or under other circumstances, the management body meeting may adopt a resolution to remove the building and use its site as the site of a new building which serves as the object of sectional ownership (Article 47 (1)). However, if the contents of re-building have special effect on the sectional owners of other buildings in the same aggregate housing area, the approval of those sectional owners should be obtained (Article 47 (2))." Article 47 provides that "At least four fifths of the sectional owners and voting rights are "at least four fifths of the sectional owners" in this context means the fixed number of sectional owners and the ratio of the area of each sectional owner's exclusive ownership (Article 37 (1) and (2) 4 of the same Act).

However, in principle, the Aggregate Buildings Act applies to the building sites and annexed facilities by unit of one unit."Separate ownership" means the ownership aiming at the respective sections of the building (Article 2 subparagraph 1, Article 1 of the same Act) if several sectional owners can be used independently from among the buildings."Separate owners" means the sectional owners who have sectional ownership; if such sectional ownership is established with respect to one unit of building, all sectional owners shall be the sectional owners and the management body members whose purpose is to carry out the business on the management of the building site and annexed facilities (Article 23 (1) of the same Act). The management body's meeting shall convene but if there is no manager, the sectional owners and sectional owners who have sectional owners who have sectional ownership or more than 1/5 of the total voting rights can convene the aggregate building without meeting's consent (Article 33 (4) of the same Act) and if there is no such sectional owners' consent to convene the meeting, all the sectional owners' rights to convene the meeting or the annexed facilities shall be notified of all the sectional owners' consent to convene the meeting (Article 34 of the Act).

(2) Therefore, first of all, it is examined whether the number of the owners of the housing who agreed to re-building constitutes at least 4/5 of the sectional owners and voting rights for each unit of building up to January 22, 1996, the number of the owners of the housing who agreed to re-building constitutes at least 24 persons, as the number of sectional owners is at least 20 persons (24 persons x 0.8), and "Da" is at least 14 persons, and 12 persons (14 persons x 0.8), and 16 persons, 13 or more sectional owners (16 persons x 0.8), 15 persons, 12 or more sectional owners (15 persons x 0.8), and 12 or more sectional owners (12 persons x 0.8) have to agree to re-building, and it is clear that all of the above 19-2, 196, 12 or more sectional owners consent to re-building.

(3) Therefore, the above "B" or "ma" Dong does not exercise properly the procedure of a special majority on reconstruction, and thus the rebuilding resolution is null and void. Accordingly, under the premise that the rebuilding resolution was effective, the plaintiff union notified the defendants to respond to whether to participate in reconstruction pursuant to the contents of the resolution of the plaintiff union on three occasions, and even if the plaintiff union exercised the right to sell the housing owned by the defendants through the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, the above peremptory notice and the exercise of the right to sell can not be deemed lawful procedures, and therefore, the above argument of the plaintiff union is therefore without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the claims of the plaintiff in this case are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-su (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice)