2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are borne by the Plaintiff.

The reasons why a member should explain this case are as follows: “A evidence Nos. 25, 27 of the first instance court’s 6 lower judgment” was amended to “A No. 27”; “A evidence Nos. 39-4, 5, 15, 34, and 11-3 of the evidence Nos. 11-3 of the first instance court’s 6-138, 39-1, 6-14, 40-1, 41, 427 of the evidence No. 6-1, 43-1, 43-2 of the first instance court’s 6-1, 43-2, and Nonparty 1 of the first instance court’s 1-7 testimony was added to the evidence No. 39-1, 5, 15, 34, and 11-3 of the evidence No. 11, and the evidence No. 25-2, 40-1, 427 of the lower court’s argument.

2. Additional determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On May 2, 2003, the plaintiff submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant on May 2, 2003, the project implementation and reconstruction resolution, the selection agreement of the representative of the reconstruction association, and the consent agreement of the reconstruction association among the documents submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant, are not all forged, but some of them were forged, and even if there is no consent on the rebuilding resolution, etc. of the relevant union members, the relevant union members had already affixed a seal on the selection agreement of the representative of the reconstruction association, submitted a certificate of personal seal impression to the plaintiff, or agreed to the rebuilding resolution. In light of the fact that 80% or more of the union members of the association were lawfully reconstructed at the special meeting held on April 27, 2003, and that the disposition of this case revoking the approval for the establishment of the housing association against the plaintiff is unlawful.

B. Determination

Therefore, on May 2, 2003, when the plaintiff applied for authorization to establish the housing association, the non-party 9 and the non-party 10 submitted a written consent of the association members for the implementation of the reconstruction project, a written consent of the representative of the reconstruction association, a written consent of the reconstruction association. Among them, the non-party 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 submitted a written consent of the reconstruction association, and the consent of the reconstruction association was forged by the non-party 1 and the non-party 9 and the non-party 10 who were the head of the redevelopment association at the time of the plaintiff association's completion of construction works and the general managing director. The non-party 9 and the non-party 10 submitted an additional written consent of the reconstruction association to the non-party 2 and the non-party 10 to the non-party 10 written consent of the reconstruction association, and the non-party 10 submitted the written consent of the reconstruction association for the non-party 2's non-party 10.

Therefore, as long as it is obvious that the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant on May 2, 2003 the project implementation and reconstruction resolution under the name of 7, such as Nonparty 2, etc. among the Plaintiff’s members, the consent letter of selection of the representative of the reconstruction association, and the consent letter of the reconstruction association agreement, the Defendant’s application for the authorization of establishment of the Plaintiff’s housing association itself is deemed unlawful on the ground of such disposition, and the instant disposition is legitimate, and the revocation of the disposition for authorization of establishment of the housing association against the Plaintiff is not affected, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit, without having to review it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Sung-sung (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)