[2] The case holding that there is no interest in the previous reconstruction association's resolution of selection of the contractor for rearrangement project and the contract concluded with the former reconstruction association before the promotion committee's promoters of the Housing Reconstruction Project Association's resolution of selection of the contractor for rearrangement project and the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents

[3] In a case where an assembly for a rebuilding resolution under Article 47 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and an inaugural general meeting for the establishment of a reconstruction association under Article 44 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act are held in the outer form, whether such assembly becomes null and void as a matter of course until the inaugural general meeting for the establishment of a reconstruction association, if the rebuilding resolution is null and void because it fails to meet the requirements of the management body meeting for

[4] Method of resolution at the inaugural general meeting of a reconstruction association established under the former Housing Construction Promotion Act

A. The part concerning the primary and conjunctive claims and the third primary claims

The benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, it is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to determine the plaintiff's legal status as the confirmation judgment in order to eliminate such apprehension and danger (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Da40089 delivered on November 22, 1994; 2003Da55059 delivered on December 22, 2005, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even if the defendant's promoters selected the non-party company as a management contractor of rearrangement project on April 29, 2004, this is merely an internal decision made by the defendant, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's right or legal status of the plaintiffs, the owner of the land in the defendant's business area, etc., has caused uneasiness or danger. The plaintiffs, after the above selection resolution, have sought confirmation of the non-existence of the resident's general meeting resolution with respect to the selection agreement entered into with the non-party company as of March 28, 2005 (hereinafter "the selection agreement in this case"), on the ground that it is sufficient for the defendant to seek confirmation of the non-existence of the resident's general meeting resolution as of April 29, 2004, and all claims for confirmation of the non-existence of the resident general meeting resolution were unlawful. In light of the above legal principles, the above determination by the court

In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, on August 27, 2000, before the enactment of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Do Government Act”), the court below held that on August 27, 2000 before the enactment of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “the Act”), the defendant was held an inaugural general meeting and passed a resolution to select the defendant as a contractor for the reconstruction project, and the previous union entered into a contract for the said reconstruction project with the defendant joining the defendant on June 22, 2001 (hereinafter “the contract of this case”). The plaintiff has a certain interest as to whether the contract of this case entered into with the defendant joining the defendant for the above reconstruction project (hereinafter “the contract of this case”). However, the above interest is merely a general and factual interest, and it does not constitute a specific legal interest, and it does not constitute the defendant's direct assertion against the defendant for the invalidity of the contract of this case and the existence of the defendant's obligation under the contract of this case. In light of the above legal principles, it is correct and there are no errors.

Therefore, all of the arguments in the grounds of appeal on this issue are rejected (the ground of appeal that the contract of this case is not subject to the latter part of Article 7 (2) of the Addenda to the Do Government Act is based on the premise that the third main claim is legitimate, and thus, it is not examined.

B. The second main claim

As to the instant selection contract between the defendant and the non-party company, it cannot be deemed that there exists the consent of at least 1/2 of the owners of the land, etc. in the defendant's business area, the ground of appeal is nothing more than disputing the examination of evidence and fact-finding, which are the exclusive authority

C. Part on the 3 preliminary claim

In a case where a sectional owner of an aggregate building holds an assembly for a rebuilding resolution under Article 47 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter "the Act") and an inaugural general meeting for the establishment of a reconstruction association under Article 44 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6655, Feb. 4, 2002; hereinafter "the Housing Promotion Act") in the course of a reconstruction project in the course of a rebuilding project, even if an inaugural general meeting is held for the establishment of a reconstruction association, the resolution passed at the meeting is legally divided into one reconstruction resolution adopted by the managing body meeting organized by each building and one reconstruction association established by one sectional owner. Since a rebuilding resolution does not constitute a part of a reconstruction association establishment, it cannot be said that the resolution becomes null and void as a matter of course even if it fails to meet the requirements for a rebuilding resolution, and thus, it cannot be said that the resolution passed at the inaugural general meeting for the establishment of a reconstruction association, which is a non-corporate entity under the Civil Act, with the exception of the provisions concerning legal personality of the Civil Act, 250.

Even according to the reasoning of the judgment below which did not dispute the plaintiffs, the previous union, with the consent of at least 4,139 out of at least 1/2,623 of the total number of owners of land, etc. in its business area at its inaugural general meeting on August 27, 2000, passed a resolution to select the defendant joining the defendant as a trial contractor. Thus, the above resolution to select the trial contractor is valid unless there are special circumstances, and as alleged by the plaintiffs, the validity of the resolution to select the trial contractor cannot be denied even if it fails to meet the quorum for rebuilding under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings at the above inaugural general meeting

2. The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in light of the Do Government Act, the Enforcement Decree of the Do Government Act, the Management Rules, and the defendant's management regulations, the court below held that, in order for the defendant to select a specialized management businessman of rearrangement projects and to conclude a selection contract with the selected specialized management businessman of rearrangement projects, the defendant must obtain consent from more than 1/2 of the owners of the land, etc. who agreed to the defendant's organization, and that such consent must go through a resolution at a general meeting of residents comprised of the owners of the land, etc. in the defendant's business area. Thus, even if the defendant requested a written written consent from the majority of the owners of the land, etc. who agreed to the organization of the non-party company's selection of a specialized management businessman of rearrangement projects and the conclusion of the selection contract of this case, such circumstance alone cannot replace the resolution at a general meeting of residents stipulated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the Management Rules of the defendant company, and there is no benefit to seek its confirmation, as long as the defendant is dissatisfied with it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)