Attorney Lee Lee-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Law Firm Chon-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee private-hoon

2. C confirms that it is not the representative partner of the Plaintiff regarding the conclusion and implementation of the sales contract with the Defendant.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

A. The Defendant is the owner of a housing redevelopment improvement project for which the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government head of Mapo-gu Office approved the establishment of a housing redevelopment improvement project on March 19, 2009 for the purpose of implementing the housing redevelopment improvement project in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 88,004 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant rearrangement project”); and the Plaintiff is the owner of a housing redevelopment improvement project for the purpose of implementing the housing redevelopment improvement project.

B. On November 21, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate on the grounds of voluntary auction (Seoul Western District Court F, G (Dupl) on November 27, 2017, and on November 27, 2017, the commencement of voluntary auction (Seoul Western District Court 2016Kadan9663) was completed upon the request of H association on October 20, 2016.

C. The previous owner of the instant real estate was C (before the title of the instant real estate: B, in addition to the instant real estate, C owned a house of 1,2 K on the ground of Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul J ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) within the instant rearrangement zone.

D. On April 6, 2018, pursuant to Article 19(1)3 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 14943, Oct. 24, 2017; hereinafter referred to as the “former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”), the Defendant deemed the Plaintiff and C as joint partners (the representative partner C) and assessed the instant real estate as joint partners, and notified the Plaintiff of the amount to be paid for the purchase of multi-family housing as KRW 177,392,392,314 and the amount to be paid for the purchase of multi-family housing as compensation and subrogation, and the main contents are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

E. On April 18, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail stating that “the Plaintiff is a sole partner who is not a joint partner with C and C, and is entitled to receive the allotment of the allocated apartment units.” On April 10, 2018 and May 2, 2018, the Plaintiff transferred the charges for the above L/C and M (hereinafter “each apartment of this case”) allocated to the Plaintiff and the Defendant for KRW 17,392,314, KRW 17,739,240, KRW 100.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) The primary claim

Article 19(1)3 of the former Act provides that only one representative member shall be appointed in cases where several persons own land, etc. from the owner of land, etc. after authorization was granted to establish an association. However, in this case, C cannot be deemed as a case where the feasibility of two sale tickets is aggravated by being granted, or where damage is incurred to the existing association members. Since the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for the instant real estate through auction, it cannot be deemed that C transferred the instant real estate to obtain speculative profit, the said provision does not apply to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is a sole partner of the Defendant and thus, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation.

B) Preliminary Claim

Even if the Plaintiff and C are co-members, according to Article 9(4) of the Defendant’s Articles of Incorporation, the Plaintiff and C submit a written consent to appoint the representative partner among co-members, and the Plaintiff did not submit it, and thus, C cannot be deemed the representative partner. However, the Defendant arbitrarily conducted the sales contract procedure after deeming C as the representative partner, and sought confirmation that C does not have the status of representative partner.

2) The defendant's assertion

A) As to the primary claim

Since "acquisition" under Article 19 (1) 3 of the former Urban Improvement Act includes auction, the plaintiff and C are co-members.

B) Preliminary Claim

As seen earlier, it is reasonable to make the existing owners of land, etc. become the representative partner if no consultation is held by the representative partner. C has the status of the representative partner.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The main contents of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation are as follows.

제9조(조합원의 자격 등) ① 조합원은 사업시행구역안의 토지 또는 건축물의 소유자 또는그 지상권자(이하 '토지등소유자'라 한다)로 한다.③ 1세대 또는 동일인이 2개 이상의 토지 또는 건축물의 소유권 또는 지상권을 소유하는경우에는 그 수에 관계없이 1인의 조합원으로 본다.④ 토지 또는 건축물의 소유권과 지상권이 수인의 공유에 속하는 때에는 그 수인을 대표하는 1인을 조합원으로 본다. 이 경우 수인은 대표자 1인을 대표조합원으로 지정하고 별지의대표조합원 선임동의서를 작성하여 조합에 신고하여야 하며, 조합원으로서의 법률행위는 그대표조합원이 행한다.⑤ 양도, 상속, 증여 및 판결 등으로 조합원의 권리가 이전된 때에는 조합원의 권리를 취득한 자로 조합원이 변경된 것으로 보며, 권리를 양수받은 자는 조합원의 권리와 의무 및 종전의 권리자가 행하였거나 조합이 종전의 권리자에게 행한 처분, 청산 시 권리·의무에 관한범위 등을 포괄승계한다.제10조(조합원의 권리·의무) ① 조합원은 다음 각호의 권리와 의무를 갖는다.1. 건축물의 분양청구권2. 총회의 출석권, 발언권 및 의결권3. 임원의 선임권 및 피선임권4. 대의원의 선출권 및 피선출권5. 손실보상 청구권6. 정비사업비, 청산금, 부과금과 이에 대한 연체료 및 지연손실금(이주지연, 계약지연, 현금청산자에 대한 현금청산시까지 발생한 정비사업비용, 조합원 분쟁으로 인한 지연 등을 포함함) 등의 비용납부의무7. 사업시행계획에 의한 철거 및 이주 의무8. 그 밖의 관계법령 및 이 정관, 총회 등의 의결사항 준수의무③ 조합원이 그 권리를 양도하거나 주소 또는 인감을 변경하였을 경우에는 그 양수자 또는변경 당사자는 그 행위의 종료일부터 14일 이내에 조합에 그 변경내용을 신고하여야 한다.조합으로서는 신고하기 전까지는 변경된 주소를 알 수가 없기 때문에 통지를 할 때까지 신고된 주소로 조합원에 대한 통지등을 할 수밖에 없으며, 이 경우 신고하지 아니하여 발생되는 불이익 등에 대하여 해당 조합원은 조합에 이의를 제기할 수 없다.제11조(조합원 자격의 상실) ② 제45조 제1항의 분양신청 기한 내에 분양신청을 아니한 자는 조합원자격이 상실된다.제45조(분양신청 등) ① 제44조 제4호의 분양신청기간은 그 통지한 날부터 30일 이상 60일 이내로 한다. 다만, 조합은 관리처분계획의 수립에 지장이 없다고 판단되는 경우에는 분양신청기간을 20일 범위 이내에서 연장할 수 있다.② 토지 또는 건축물을 분양받고자 하는 조합원은 분양신청서에 소유권의 내역을 명시하고,그 소유의 토지 및 건축물에 관한 등기부등본 등 그 권리를 입증할 수 있는 증명서류를 조합에 제출하여야 한다.④ 조합은 조합원이 다음 각호의 1에 해당하는 경우에는 그 해당하게 된 날부터 150일 이내에 건축물 또는 그 밖의 권리에 대하여 현금으로 청산하되, 합의차원에서 기간을 연장하여 진행할 수 있다. 그 금액은 구청장이 추천하는 감정평가업자 2 이상이 평가한 금액을산술평균하여 산정한다.1. 분양신청을 하지 아니한 자: 제45조 제1항에 따른 분양신청기간 종료일 다음 날⑤ 조합원은 관리처분계획인가 후 지정기일안에 분양계약체결을 하여야 하며 분양계약체결을 하지 않는 경우 제4항의 규정을 준용한다.⑦ 분양계약을 체결하였으나, 조합원 부담금을 미납한 경우에는 조합이 조합원에게 납부요청 등을 포함한 내용증명을 3회 발송하여 납입 요청하며, 계속하여 납부가 되지 않을 경우최고 후 최고서에 정한 날까지 납부하지 아니한 때에는 조합원이 분양받을 의사가 없는 것으로 간주하여 현금청산하여야 하며, 해당 조합원이 분양계약한 신축아파트는 포기하는 것으로 간주하고 일반분양으로 전환한다.제53조(분양받을 권리의 양도 등) ① 조합원은 조합원 자격이나 권한, 입주자로 선정된 지위 등을 양도한 경우에는 조합에 변동 신고하여야 하며, 양수자에게는 조합원의 권리와 의무, 자신이 행하였거나, 조합이 자신에게 행한 처분, 절차, 청산 시 권리의무에 관한 범위등이 포괄승계됨을 명확히 하여 양도하여야 한다.② 제1항의 규정에 의하여 사업시행구역안의 토지 또는 건축물에 대한 권리를 양도받은 자는 확정일자가 있는 증서를 첨부하여 조합에 통지하여야 하며, 조합에 통지한 이후가 아니면 조합에 대항할 수 없다.③ 조합은 조합원의 변동이 있는 경우 변경의 내용을 증명하는 서류를 첨부하여 구청장의조합원 변경인가를 받아야 한다.

2) The main contents of the conclusion of the contract for sales notice sent by the Defendant to its members are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Judgment as to the main claim

A) The main text of Article 19(1) of the former Act provides that the association members of a rearrangement project shall be owners of land, etc. (in the case of a housing reconstruction project and a block-unit housing rearrangement project, limited to the persons who have agreed respectively to the housing reconstruction project and the block-unit housing rearrangement project). However, in any of the following cases, one member representing the number shall be deemed to be the one member, and subparagraph 3 of Article 19 provides that "when one person acquires the ownership or superficies of land or buildings from the owners of land, etc., and several persons

Article 19(1)3 of the former Act provides that Article 19(1)3 of the former Act provides that the purpose of protecting the property rights of the existing association members by preventing the increase of association members and the aggravation of business feasibility after authorization for establishment of an association is to protect the property rights of the existing association members, and in general, the "transfer of rights" is based on the intention of the parties and includes not only the provisions of law such as auction procedure, etc.

B) In light of the above legal principles, since the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of land from C after authorization was granted to establish a public health zone, and several persons own land, etc., the Plaintiff and C shall be deemed to be only one member representing as joint partners, and the Plaintiff shall not be deemed to be a sole member. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s primary claim on a different premise is without merit.

다) 이에 대하여 원고는, 구 도시 및 주거환경정비법(2017. 10. 24. 법률 제14943호로 개정되어 2018. 3. 20. 법률 제15489호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제39조 제2항 제5호, 구 도시 및 주거환경정비법 시행령(2018. 1. 25. 대통령령 제28610호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제30조 제3항 제5호에 따르면 투기과열지구안의 재개발사업에 있어 관리처분계획의 인가 후 토지 등을 양수한 자는 조합원이 될 수 없으나, 예외적으로 금융기관에 대한 채무를 이행하지 못하여 토지 등이 경매되는 경우에 있어서는 조합원의 자격을 가질 수 있는 것으로 이 사건 부동산의 양도에 있어서 투기목적이 존재하지 않고, 원고와 C이 취득할 공동주택이 2주택이므로 각 1주택에 관한 조합원으로 인정한다고 하더라도 조합의 사업성이 악화되는 경우가 아니어서 원고를 단독조합원으로 인정하여야 한다는 취지로 주장한다. 그러나 ㉠ 위 규정은 재개발사업에 있어서 관리처분계획의 인가 이후에는 투기과열지구 내에서의 투기를 억제하기 위하여 조합원 지위의 양도를 허용하지 않되, 그 예외를 규정한 것으로 조합원 수의 증가를 방지하기 위해 수인의 공동조합원 중 1인을 대표조합원으로 보는 구 도시정비법 제19조 제1항과는 그 목적이나 적용대상을 달리하는 점, ㉡ 위 규정 역시 '양수'에 경매절차에 의한 취득이 포함되는 것을 전제로 금융기관에 대한 채무불이행으로 인한 토지 등의 경매에 있어 경매로 인한 토지 등의 취득자를 보호하기 위한 예외를 설정한 것에 불과할 뿐만 아니라, 구 도시정비법 제19조 제1항은 위와 같은 예외 조항이 존재하지 않고 구 도시 및 주거환경정비법(2017. 10. 24. 법률 제14943호로 개정되어 2018. 3. 20, 법률 제15489호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제39조 제1항 역시 마찬가지인 점, ㉢ C에게 투기목적이 없었다거나 원고와 C이 취득할 공동주택이 2주택이라는 사정만으로는 이 사건 부동산의 경매로 인한 양도가 구 도시정비법 제19조 제1항 제3호의 '양도'에 해당하지 않는다고 보기 어려운 점, ㉣ 더욱이 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 임의경매가 개시된 시점은 2016. 10. 20.로 이 사건 정비구역에서 피고가 조합설립인가를 받은 시점인 2009. 3. 19. 이후인바, 원고가 피고를 상대로 조합원 지위를 취득할 수 있는지 등을 확인하는 것이 불가능하였다고 보이지도 않는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 원고의 위 주장은 받아들이기 어렵다.

2) Determination on the conjunctive claim

A) Article 19(1)3 of the former Urban Improvement Act provides that "when several owners acquire ownership of land, etc. from one owner of land, etc. after the authorization for establishing an association, one representative shall be deemed to be one member." Article 9(3) of the defendant's articles of association provides that "where one household or the same person owns ownership or superficies of at least two land or buildings, one representative shall be deemed to be one member regardless of the number thereof." Paragraph (4) of the defendant's articles of association provides that "where the ownership or superficies of land or buildings belongs to several co-ownership, one representative shall be deemed to be one member. In this case, the representative shall be designated as a representative member, and the representative member shall be reported to the association by preparing a written consent for the appointment of the representative member in attached Form, and the juristic act as a member shall be done by the representative member."

Article 19(1)3 of the former Act does not mean that a number of owners of a plot of land, etc., other than one representative partner, shall not be interpreted to have the remaining owners of a plot of land, etc., completely withdraw from an association’s legal relationship with the cooperative and shall not be treated as non-members. It means that, by selecting one representative partner who is deemed as one representative partner, one representative partner who is to represent shall be registered with the cooperative, thereby promoting the procedural convenience in the operation of the cooperative, as well as by treating the number of members as one member, unless otherwise stipulated in the association regulations or a resolution of the general meeting of partners, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da53245, Feb. 12, 2009).

B) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is reasonable, and as long as C is the representative partner without the Plaintiff’s consent, the Plaintiff has a benefit of confirmation, insofar as C is dissatisfied with the status of representative partner.

① Members have rights and duties such as the right to attend a general meeting, right to speak and voting rights, right to appoint executives and right to elect representatives, and duty to pay expenses for rearrangement projects, etc. as well as the right to request the owners of land or buildings within the project implementation district (Article 9 of the Defendant’s Articles of Incorporation). Meanwhile, as seen earlier, when several owners become owners of land, etc. after acquiring ownership from one owner of land, etc. after approving the establishment of an association, one representative member shall be appointed. The former Urban Improvement Act does not provide for the method of selecting representative members, etc., and the Defendant’s articles of incorporation provides that when several persons jointly own land, etc., if designating one representative member is to be designated as a representative member, the association shall prepare a written consent to appoint the representative member and report it to the association (Article 9(4) of the Defendant’s Articles of Incorporation). Accordingly, even if several owners of land, etc. acquire ownership from one owner of land, etc. after approving the establishment of an association, there is no reason to view it as necessary for one representative member to designate a representative member.

② The Defendant asserts to the effect that it is reasonable to view C as a representative partner in the event that C acquires the instant real estate by transfer to the Plaintiff, and that it is reasonable to regard C as a representative partner in the absence of any provision regarding the procedures for selecting representative partners under the former Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, etc. However, the status of a member is based on the general assembly attendance right, speaking right, voting right, right to appoint executives, etc. regarding the overall project of the redevelopment project including the right to claim the sale of the building. If a representative partner is appointed, the distribution of rights is limited based on the representative partner’s right to demand the sale of the building. In particular, in the event of conflict of interests among the joint partners, if a representative partner can be designated as a partnership, it is highly likely that the representative partner will be placed at an unfavorable position in relation to the exercise of the right to attend the general meeting. If a representative partner is appointed as a representative partner, it is difficult to accept not only the Plaintiff’s appointment of the representative partner but also the Plaintiff’s appointment of the representative partner at any time.

③ In addition, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff paid KRW 17,739,240 among the charges with respect to each of the instant apartment units, but the Plaintiff’s membership was disqualified due to the failure to attach necessary documents, such as the certificate of personal seal impression, which is the representative partner, in the sales contract. However, as seen above, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is difficult to accept, given that the eligibility for application for parcelling-out cannot be deemed as a representative partner, C alone cannot be deemed to have been lost due to the failure to file an application for parcelling-out (see Articles 11(2) and 45(4)1 of the Defendant’s Articles of incorporation). Furthermore, as long as the Plaintiff, who is a joint partner, paid 10% of the charges with respect to each of the instant apartment units, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the charges to cooperative members (see

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The preliminary claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Kim Gin-sung

Judges Chak-young

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.