Gwangju Northern Northern District 0 0

2. Gong○○.

Gwangju North-gu ○ ○ ○

3. Kim○-○

Gwangju North-gu ○ 00-00

4. Audit. ○○

Gwangju North-gu ○ 00

5. Forwarding ○○.

Gwangju North-gu ○ ○ ○-- ○

6. Lighting; and

Gwangju North-gu ○ ○ ○-- ○

7. Guide ○○

Gwangju North-gu ○ ○ ○-- ○

8. Do○○;

Gwangju North-gu ○ 00-00

9. Ma○○.

Gwangju Northern-gu OOO0-00

10. Haba-○

Gwangju Northern-gu OOO0

Yang-si, Attorney Yang Sung-soo, Counsel for defendant

Gwangju Northern Northern-gu OOOOO0O ○ ○

Representative Chairman O0

Attorney Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Gangnam-gu Seoul OO0-0 O00

OO

A. Of the resolution made by the Defendant at a residents' general meeting held on August 24, 2006, it is confirmed that the resolution for delegation of the matters to be resolved at the ○○ general meeting, approval of the budget of the promotion committee (draft), approval of the amendment delegation and funding method, the selection of the specialized management businessmen of rearrangement projects and the approval of the conclusion of the contract, and the resolution for delegation of the appointment of the contractor and the conclusion of the contract are invalid respectively.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, the costs incurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are divided into three minutes, and one of them is borne by the Plaintiff, the Defendant who is the money, and the part arising from the participation is borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

A. The defendant is a non-corporate body that obtained approval from the Gwangju Metropolitan City ○○○○○○○ on May 7, 2005 with the consent of 265 owners of the land, etc. in the above project area under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents for the purpose of conducting an urban environment improvement project (hereinafter referred to as “OOO”) by making 00,000 square meters of the total project area in Gwangju Northern-gu ○○○○-○○○○○○-○○○○○, a non-corporate body that is located within the implementation zone of the ○○ Improvement Project, and the plaintiffs are land owners, etc. in this area.

B. On August 10, 2006, the Defendant announced that the resident general meeting should be held against the owner of the land, etc. in the ○○ Improvement Project Zone, etc. on each agenda set forth in the attached Table 1. On August 24, 2006, around 14:00, the Defendant opened the resident general meeting (hereinafter “instant resident general meeting”).

C. The instant resident general meeting deliberated on each agenda by 334 members, including 298 investors (10 members submitted a written resolution in writing) and 36 direct participants (2 members submitted a written resolution in writing).

D. Of those who have submitted a written resolution to the Residents' General Meeting of this case, 205 persons (211 persons in total) who have consented to the composition of the Promotion Committee (excluding six persons who have not been appointed as representative among them and who cannot be seen as exercising voting rights by means of a certificate of seal imprint) and 15 persons (excluding two persons who have submitted a written resolution among 17 persons) who have consented to the composition of the Promotion Committee, and 220 persons, including land, etc. who have consented to the composition of the Promotion Committee, were decided by the Residents' General Meeting of this case.

E. Relevant provisions of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree"), and the defendant's operating regulations (hereinafter referred to as the "operating regulations") are as follows:

2. Determination as to this case's defense

The defendant and the defendant joining the defendant asserted that even if the general meeting of residents of this case decided to select the work executor, this part of the resolution is merely a provisional selection resolution under the premise of ratification by the general meeting of the urban environment rearrangement project association in ○○ area (hereinafter referred to as the "association") to be established in the future, and there is no legal effect in relation to the association until the above resolution is ratified, and there is no apprehension or risk in relation to the rights and legal status of the plaintiffs as a result of the above contractor's selection resolution, and it cannot be deemed valid and appropriate means, as it is resolving the dispute, seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution on the selection of the work executor among the resolution of the general meeting of residents of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of invalidity in this part

On the other hand, there is controversy as to whether the above resolution can be succeeded to an association that will be established in the future in accordance with Article 15(4) of the Act, as long as the defendant is arguing that the above resolution is valid in the lawsuit of this case, since the defendant holds a general meeting of residents of this case and the defendant's intervenor's intervenor's intervenor's intervenor's intervenor's intervenor's intervenor's intervenor's intervenor's intervenor's intervenor's intervenor's intervenor's intervenor's selection as the contractor's contractor's contractor's intervenor's defendant's intervenor's right or legal status in relation to the promotion of ○○ Maintenance Project, it is difficult to confirm the invalidity of the resolution of the contractor's selection among the resident's general meeting of this case.

Therefore, the above argument by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant is rejected. 3. Determination on the merits

A. Whether the quorum of the general meeting of the residents of this case is satisfied

(1) Article 22(1) of the Operational Rule provides that the general meeting of residents shall be held with the attendance of a majority of the owners, such as the land, etc. supporting the composition of the promotion committee, except as otherwise expressly provided for in the Act and the Operational Rule. Therefore, in calculating the quorum for opening the promotion committee’s general meeting, only the presence of the owners, such as the land, etc.

(2) Article 22(2) of the Operating Rules only stipulates that the owner of land, etc. can exercise his/her voting right through a written or proxy, and the submission of a written resolution does not necessarily require the submission of a written resolution to attach a certificate of seal impression. Therefore, in calculating the number of circumstances sufficient for opening the residents’ general meeting, a person who submits a written resolution without a certificate of seal impression shall be deemed to have attended the State-owned general meeting.

(3) As seen earlier, 220 of 265 owners, including the land, etc. supporting the composition of the committee of promoters, were present at the instant resident general meeting (25 direct attendance + 205 written resolution). As such, the resident general meeting of this case met the quorum.

B. Resolution No. 1 of this case

(1) The parties' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that the " bill of delegation by the General Meeting Resolution", which is the resolution of No. 1 of this case, is invalid because it is against the legislative intent of the statute.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the resolution of subparagraph 1 of this case, which delegates certain matters to the promotion committee, is lawful, in light of the fact that it is difficult for the promotion committee to hold the residents' general meeting from time to time with large expenses and is against the interest of the residents.

(2) Determination

In the resolution of this case No. 1, matters delegated to the Promotion Committee: ① Amendment of operational regulations due to the amendment of related Acts and subordinate statutes; ② Preparation and amendment of the outline project implementation plan; ③ Replacement of vacant promoters; ④ Other matters requiring urgency in the promotion of the project; etc., there is no dispute between the parties.

On the other hand, matters concerning the amendment of operating rules among the above matters constitute Article 8(1)1 (a) of the Operating Rules, and matters requiring the consent of 2/3 or more of the owners of the land, etc. who agreed to the majority of the owners of the land, etc. or the composition of the promotion committee, etc., and matters concerning the preparation and amendment of the outlined project implementation plan fall under Article 23(1)2 (b) and Article 8(1)2 (d) of the Enforcement Decree, and thus, matters requiring the consent of 1/2 or more of the owners of the land, etc. who agreed to the composition of the promotion committee, etc. as the case falls under Article 23(1)2 (b) and Article 8(1)2 (d) of the Operating Rules, and Article 28 of the Enforcement Decree and Article 8(3) of the Operating Rules stipulate that the consent of the owners of the land, etc. shall be accompanied by a written consent using a certificate of seal imprint and a certificate of seal impression. The following (c) reasonable interpretation of each of the above provisions should be construed as follows.

However, there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts that only 120 persons who were unable to be less than a majority among the 265 owners, such as the land, etc. approved to the composition of the promotion committee at the time of the residents' general meeting of this case, were to have a seal impression affixed, and the certificate of seal impression was affixed. Therefore, among the resolution No. 1 of this case, the resolution No. 1 of this case, the resolution No. 1 of this case is null and void because it is apparent that the quorum did not meet the quorum without any further determination. Since the resolution No.

C. Resolution Nos. 2 and 4 of this case

(1) The parties' assertion

The plaintiffs claim that each resolution of the second and fourth cases of this case is null and void because there is a defect that does not meet the above quorum, and thus, the resolution of this case is not in compliance with Article 23(1) of the Enforcement Decree and Article 8(1), (3), and Article 21 of the Operational Rules.

In regard to this, the defendant should distinguish between the consent of the owner of the land stipulated in Article 8 of the Operating Rules and the resolution method of the residents' general meeting stipulated in Article 22. In the exercise of voting rights in writing at the residents' general meeting under Article 22 of the Operating Rules, there is no limitation that the opposing and opposing opinion on the agenda should be affixed as a seal imprint or a seal imprint, unlike the light of the written consent under Article 8 of the Operating Rules, so the resolution of subparagraphs 2 and 4 of this case was satisfied.

(2) Determination

The Defendant’s assertion that the consent of the owners of land, etc. under Article 8 of the Operating Rules and the method of resolution by the residents’ general meeting under Article 22 should be distinguished is correct in principle. However, Article 21(1) of the Operating Rules provides that the matters requiring the consent of the owners of land, etc. shall be decided through a resolution by the residents’ general meeting pursuant to Article 8(1). Article 22(1) of the Operating Rules provides that “the residents’ general meeting shall be held with the attendance of the majority of the landowners consenting to the composition of the Promotion Committee, except as otherwise expressly provided for in the Act and this operating Rule, and shall be decided with the consent of the owners of land, etc. who attend the meeting.” In this context, “the Act and this operating Rule specifically include Article 23(1) of the Enforcement Decree and Article 8(1) of the Operating Rule.” Thus, if a resolution is made with respect to the matters provided for in Article 23(1) of the Enforcement Decree and Article 8(1) of the Operating Rule, and whether the relevant regulations are satisfied even after the relevant regulations are finalized.

In this case, the "resolution of approval of the budget (draft) of the Promotion Committee which is the resolution of this case, amendment and approval of the method of raising funds" under Article 8 (1) 2 (e) of the Operational Rules, and Article 8 (1) 2 (a), Article 23 (1) 2 (b) of the Operational Rules and Article 8 (1) 2 (c) of the Operation Rules are clear. Therefore, in making the resolution of this case 2 and 4 at the Jeju Civil Assembly, the majority of the owners of the land, etc. who consented to the former nature of the Promotion Committee shall be required to obtain the consent under each of the above provisions, and the consent shall be obtained by attaching a certificate of seal impression pursuant to Articles 23 (2) and 28 of the Enforcement Decree, and Article 8 (3) of the Operational Rules, and the resolution of the selection of a specialized management businessman and the conclusion of a contract shall be null and void by 200 persons who are owners of the land, etc. who consent to the formation of the Promotion Committee.

D. Resolution No. 3 of this case

(1) The parties' assertion

The plaintiffs claim that the resolution of subparagraph 3 of this case is valid only when a written resolution accompanied by a certificate of seal impression is submitted, with the consent of the majority of the voters, such as the land, etc. present pursuant to Article 22 (1) of the Operating Rules.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that the resolution of the case No. 3 of this case is without the need to be made in writing with the certificate of seal imprint and the certificate of seal imprint.

(2) Determination

The "Resolution on Approval of the Secretariat Business Rules and the Amendment to the Delegation Resolution", which is the Resolution No. 3 of this case, do not fall under Article 23 (1) of the Enforcement Decree and Article 8 (1) of the Operating Rules, which provide for matters requiring written consent by the certificate of seal imprint and the certificate of seal imprint. Therefore, in determining whether the Resolution No. 3 of this case is legitimate, it is problematic whether the Resolution No. 22 of the Operating Rules meet the quorum.

Article 22(1) of the Operational Rule provides that "the majority of the owners of the land, etc. who attended the meeting of the general meeting of residents" shall be included in the calculation of whether the quorum is met. Therefore, in light of the health class, Gap evidence No. 4-2 and the result of verification of documents for preservation of evidence at the court of first instance (as of May 30, 2007), 332 participants of the general meeting of residents of this case (36 direct participants, 298, and 2 direct participants have submitted a written resolution in duplicate, and therefore, it may be acknowledged that the resolution of this case was approved by the resolution of this case.

Therefore, the resolution of this case No. 3 is a valid resolution satisfying the quorum.

E. Resolution No. 5 of this case

(1) The parties' assertion

The plaintiffs claim that the resolution of this case No. 5 is null and void, since the matters concerning the selection of architectural firms and conclusion of contracts are accompanied by the cost-bearing of the owners, such as the land, etc., or the change in rights and obligations. Thus, the plaintiffs must obtain written consent with 1/2 or more of the owners, such as the land approved to the composition of the promotion committee pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Enforcement Decree and Articles 8(1) and (3) and 21 of the Regulations.

(2) Determination

Article 23(1) of the Enforcement Decree and Article 8(1) of the Operating Rules do not require written consent with respect to all matters that result in a change in rights and obligations by landowners, such as land, etc., or that require written consent with respect to all matters that result in a change in rights and obligations, but require written consent with a certificate of personal seal impression attached to the above relevant provisions. However, since the selection of an architect office and the conclusion of a contract for a contract for a contract for a contract for a contract for a contract for a contract for a contract for a contract for a architectural office are not applicable to any of the above provisions, there is no need for written consent with 1/2 or more of the owners of the land, etc. who agreed to the composition of the Promotion Committee and there is no consent with the majority of the owners of the land

Therefore, with respect to whether the resolution of No. 5 of this case satisfies the quorum, the following facts can be acknowledged: (a) considering the whole purport of the pleadings in light of the health account, Gap evidence No. 4-2, and the result of the verification of documents to be preserved by the court of first instance (as of May 30, 2007) as to whether the resolution of No. 5 of this case satisfies the quorum; (b) 200 persons who are clearly injured by the majority of 332 persons present at the general meeting of residents of this case, who

Therefore, the resolution of No. 5 of this case is a valid resolution satisfying the quorum.

F. Resolution No. 6 of this case

(1) The parties' assertion

The plaintiffs claim that the resolution of this case, which delegates the authority to set up a contractor and conclude a contract to the promotion committee who did not receive an authorization for the establishment of the partnership as well as the authorization for the establishment of the partnership, is invalid, since the selection of the contractor is the authority of the

As to this, the Defendant and the Defendant’s Intervenor did not pass a provisional selection resolution to conclude a provisional contract, which is premised on ratification at the joint meeting after approving the establishment of the association. The Act applied at the time of the instant resident’s general meeting is prior to the amendment by Act No. 7960 of May 24, 2006 (hereinafter “former Act”). Unlike the previous Act, Article 11 of the former Act does not limit the time of selecting a contractor for redevelopment improvement project and urban environment rearrangement project, the Plaintiff could select a contractor at the stage of the committee’s general meeting at the time of the instant resident’s general meeting. As such, the instant resolution did not contain any defect.

(2) Determination

In the case of a housing redevelopment project, the selection of a Si project shall be subject to the resolution of the general meeting of the association (Article 24 of the former Act) and the duties of the committee for the promotion of the establishment of a housing redevelopment project (Article 15 of the former Act and Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree). In addition, in order to establish a cooperative, at least 4/5 of the owners of the land, etc., consent is required, while the committee for the promotion of a project is able to be constituted only with the consent of at least 1/2 of the owners of the land, etc. (Articles 13(2) and 16(1) of the former Act). Since there is a difference between the association and the committee for the promotion of a project, and in the case of a cooperative, the agreed executives are appointed as public officials in the application of Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act (Article 84 of the former Act). Moreover, since the rights and obligations related to the project performed by the committee for the promotion of a project are to be established in the future (Article 15(4).

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the selection of a city construction project is not belonging to the scope of the general meeting of the association, such as the land, etc. held by the promotion committee or the promotion committee, but is the inherent authority of the general meeting of the association. Therefore, the determination of the city construction project in this case is null and void.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the resolutions made at the residents' general meeting of this case, each resolution of the first, second, fourth, and sixth of this case is null and void, and the defendant and the defendant's intervenor asserted that each of the above resolutions is valid, and they are interested in seeking confirmation, so they should receive this part of the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs' remaining claims for confirmation of invalidation should be dismissed without merit. Since the judgment of the first instance court is unfair with some different conclusions, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of the court of first instance.

Yang Young-hee

Handedles

Matters on resolution of the Residents' Meeting

1 Resolution on delegation of the committee for resolution by general assembly

2 Approval of the budget (not inside) of the promotion committee, amendment delegation, and approval of the method of financing

3 Resolution on the approval of the Secretariat Operation Rules and the amendment delegation thereof

Resolution to select a specialized management businessman of rearrangement project and to conclude contracts.

5 Resolution on the selection of architectural firms and the delegation of contracts

6 The selection of the work executor and the appointment of the contract delegation.

Attached Form 2.

Relevant Provisions

Article 11 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 7960 of May 24, 2006)

(1) The housing reconstruction project association shall select the constructor or registered project operator as the constructor after obtaining authorization for project implementation.

Article 13 (Establishment of Partnership and Composition of Promotion Committee)

(1) Where a person who is not the head of a Si/Gun or the Housing Corporation, etc. intends to implement a rearrangement project, he/she shall establish an association comprised of landowners, etc.: Provided, That the same shall not apply where the owners of a plot of land, etc. intend to independently implement an urban environment rearrangement project under Article 8 (3).

(1) The promotion committee shall perform the following duties:

2. Selection of the specialized management businessman of rearrangement project under Article 69 (hereinafter referred to as the “specialized management businessman of rearrangement project”);

5. Other affairs prescribed by the Presidential Decree as necessary for promoting an establishment.

(1) When the promotion committee for housing redevelopment projects and urban environment rearrangement projects intends to establish an association, it shall obtain authorization from the head of a Si/Gun, along with the articles of association and the documents prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, with the consent of not less than 4/5 of the owners of land, etc..

(1) A general meeting comprised of union members shall be established.

(3) The following matters shall undergo a resolution at a general meeting:

2. Borrowing of funds, method of such borrowing, interest rate, and method of repayment;

3. Amount and collection method of the costs under Article 61;

4. Use of rearrangement project costs;

5. Contracts to be borne by members other than those stipulated in the budget; and

6. Selection and alteration of the removal businessman, work executor and designer;

7. Selection and replacement of a specialized management businessman of rearrangement projects;

9. Details of allocation for each member of the rearrangement project;

12. Other matters necessary to determine important matters, such as those imposing economic burdens on partners, which are prescribed by Presidential Decree or the articles of incorporation.

(4) Matters requiring the consent of partners pursuant to this Act or the articles of association from among those referred to in each subparagraph of paragraph (3) shall be presented to the all councils.

Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Law No. 7960, May 24, 2006)

Article 11 (Selection of Work Executor)

(1) A housing redevelopment project cooperative and an urban environment rearrangement project cooperative shall select a constructor or registered project operator as a contractor after obtaining authorization to establish the association, and after obtaining authorization to implement the housing reconstruction project.

Enforcement Decree of the Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Act

Article 23 (Consent of Owners of Land, etc. to Duties of Promotion Committee)

(1) The promotion committee under Article 14 (3) of the Act shall obtain the consent of the owners of lands, etc. in accordance with the standards falling under each of the following subparagraphs, when the contents of its business are accompanied by the bearing of expenses or cause any change in rights and duties. In such cases, matters other than those falling under the following subparagraphs shall

1. Matters requiring consent from at least 2/3 of the owners of land, etc. who have consented to organizing a majority of the owners of land, etc. or promotion committee;

(a) Preparation of operational regulations of the promotion committee;

2. Matters requiring consent of a majority of the owners of lands, etc. who have consented to organizing the promotion committee;

(2) Article 28 (1) and (4) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the number of consenters of owners of lands, etc. under paragraph (1).

Article 28 (Methods of Calculating Consent Number of Owners of Land, etc.)

(4) The consent (including the withdrawal of consent) of the owners of lands, etc. under Articles 13 through 16 of the Act shall be made by the method of the written consent using the reduction place of seal impression, and in this case, the certificate of seal impression shall be attached thereto.

Article 5 (Duties, etc. of Promotion)

(1) Every promotion committee shall perform the following duties:

1. Formulation of a project implementation plan which outlines the rearrangement project management businessman under Article 69 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the “maintenance project management businessman”);

(2) Where necessary to formulate a project implementation plan under paragraph (1) 2, a promotion committee may enter into a service contract with construction offices, etc. In such cases, the contract period shall not exceed the operation period under Article 7.

Article 8 (Consent of Owners of Land, etc.)

(1) The promotion committee shall obtain the consent of landowners, etc. according to the standards falling under each of the following subparagraphs under Article 14 (3) of the Act:

1. Matters requiring a majority of the owners of land, etc. or 2/3 or more of the owners of land, etc. who have consented to organizing a promotion committee;

(a) Amendment of operational regulations;

2. Matters requiring an agreement of not less than 1/2 of the owners of lands, etc. who have approved an organization of the promotion committee;

(d) Formulation and alteration of the outlined project implementation plan under Article 30;

(e) Determination and alteration of methods for raising funds under Article 32;

(3) The consent (including the withdrawal of consent) of the owners of lands, etc. under paragraph (1) shall be made by the method of the written consent using the seal imprint design, and a seal imprint shall be attached thereto.

Article 13 (Rights and Duties of Owners of Land, etc.)

(1) The owners of lands, etc. shall have the following rights and duties: Provided, That the provisions of subparagraphs 2 through 4 shall be limited to those who consent to organize the Promotion Committee:

1. Right to attend, speak and vote at a general meeting of residents;

2. Right to elect, elect, and elect members of the promotion committee;

3. Responsibility to pay operating expenses and late payment charges of the promotion committee;

4. Other relevant statutes, operating rules, and matters to be resolved by the residents' general meeting, etc. under Article 21.

The following matters shall be determined through a resolution of the residents' general meeting:

1. Matters which require the consent of the owners of lands, etc. under Article 8 (1);

(1) A general meeting of residents shall be held with attendance of a majority of landowners consenting to the composition of the committee of promoters, except as otherwise expressly provided for in the Act and this operational regulations, and any decision may be made with the consent of the majority of the owners of lands, etc. who have attended. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2019, Feb. 1, 2008> (2) The owners of lands, etc. may exercise voting rights in writing or by proxy falling under any subparagraph of Article 13 (2). In this case, when attending in writing pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (2), the owners of lands, etc. shall express his/her intention to the contents of the agenda and make him/her arrive at the committee of promoters by the day preceding the resident general meeting.