A person shall be appointed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by the parties, in full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3-3, 4-1, 3-2, 4-1, 3-2, 4, 8, 9, 12, and 16-2, and the whole purport of the pleadings, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

A. Status of the parties

Defendant 0000 Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Cooperative") is a reconstruction association that obtained authorization for the establishment of a reconstruction association from the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 27, 2003, with the members of the sectional owners of the apartment and commercial buildings [46 apartment and 2 commercial buildings (46 apartment and 00 commercial buildings and 00 commercial buildings; hereinafter referred to as the " apartment complex of this case"] located in the apartment and commercial buildings [46 apartment and 2 commercial buildings and 00 commercial buildings; hereinafter referred to as the " apartment complex of this case]. The plaintiffs are the owners of the above 00 commercial buildings.

B. In the process of implementing the reconstruction project (1) on July 14, 2001, the Defendant Union held an inaugural general meeting to conduct the reconstruction project, and submitted the rebuilding resolution and the written consent for the project plan (hereinafter referred to as the "written consent for the reconstruction resolution and the project plan") from the members of the apartment association, and the written consent for the reconstruction project of this case from the members of the commercial building. The details of the rebuilding agreement of this case related to the reconstruction project of this case are as follows: [The contents of the written consent for the reconstruction resolution of this case and the project plan of this case are the same as the (commercial) of the rebuilding agreement of this case and the written consent for the rebuilding project of this case, and the written consent for the rebuilding plan of this case shall be added to the written consent of this case (commercial building)."

Details of reconstruction projects.

The design outline of the building site area: (a) the area of the site, total floor area, and the scale of the building in the case of a commercial building which is determined at the time of approval of the project plan, etc., shall be estimated and calculated after consultation with the subsequent cooperative: (b) the estimated cost of the construction: (c) the cost-sharing cost of the building in accordance with the association regulations; (b) the cost shall be fairly shared according to the current ownership housing type in accordance with the association regulations; and (c) the final settlement shall be made at the time of the disposal and disposal, and the contribution shall be finally determined

○ 사업추진방식은 조합규약이 정하는 바에 따라 총회에서 재적조합원 과반수의 출석과 출석조합원 과반수의 찬성으로 결정한다 .○ 분담금을 정하기 위한 조합원의 권리금액 산정은 아래 ( ① 현 소유 주택평형을 기준으로분담금을 정하는 경우 ' 와 ' ② 현 소유 토지 및 건축물을 평가하여 분담금을 정하는 경우 ' 중에서 ' 관리처분계획 수립을 위한 총회 ' 에서 조합규약이 정하는 바에 따라 재적조합원 과반수의 출석과 출석조합원 과반수의 찬성으로 확정한다 .[ 공동주택 ( 아파트 ) 소유 조합원의 분담금 산정 ]▷ 도급제 방식으로 사업을 추진하기로 결의한 경우의 비용분담 :① 현 소유주택 평형을 기준으로 분담금을 정하는 경우* 조합원 분담금 = 분양받을 아파트의 분양금액 - ( 당해 ) 조합원의 권리 지분* 조합원의 권리 지분 = 주택평형별 개발이익금 배분금액 x ( 당해 ) 조합원 현 소유주택 평형별 평균대지면적 * 주택평형별 개발이익금 배분금액 = 개발이익금 : 아파트 소유 조합원의 총 소유 대지지분 면적* 개발이익금 = ( 총 분양수입금 - 기타 수입금 ) - ( 건축비 등 총 사업비 )② 현 소유 토지 및 건축물을 감정평가하여 분담금을 정하는 경우* 조합원 분담금 = 분양받을 아파트의 분양금액 - ( 당해 ) 조합원의 권리 지분* 조합원의 권리 지분 = 개발이익금 x ( 당해 ) 조합원의 현 소유 토지 및 건축물 평가액사업구역내 전체조합원의 현 소유 토지 및 건축물 총 평가액▷ 지분제 방식으로 사업을 추진하기로 결의한 경우의 비용분담 :* 시공사선정시 시공사가 제시하는 조합원 권리 지분 ( 무상지분 ) 금액과 분양평형별 부담금액에 따른다 .[ 상가 및 부대복리시설 소유조합원의 분담금산정 ]▷ 상가 소유조합원과의 협의에 의하여 건축계획을 수립하고, 비용을 산출한 후 조합과상가 소유 조합원이 별도로 합의하는 비용분담기준에 따라 비용을 분담하기로 하며, 관리처분계획 수립시 비용분담금액을 최종 확정한다 .라 신축건물의 구분소유권 귀속에 관한 사항 : 조합규약 제7장 ( 관리처분 ) 에 따름 이 아파트 : 분양평형 결정은 조합원의 분양신청에 의하고, 경합이 있는 경우 현 소유 ( 종전주택 ) 평형이 큰 조합원에게 우선권을 부여하고, 평형이 동일한 경우의 평형 선택과 동, 호수의결정은 공개추첨에 의한다 .○ 상가 : 분양면적 및 호수 결정은 분양신청에 의하고, 경합이 있는 경우 종전 ( 현재 ) 소유상가의 동일층 조합원에게 우선권을 부여하고, 층이 같은 경우에는 감정평가금액이 높은 조합원에게 우선 선택권을 부여하며, 평가금액이 동일한 경우에는 공개추첨에 의한다. 단, 분양면적과 호수는 조합의 상가분양계획에 의해 분할하여 정하는 면적과 호수에 의한다 .○ 잉여분 처분에 관한 사항 : 조합원에게 분양하고 남는 아파트와 상가 등 부대 · 복리시설은 주택공급에 관한 규칙이 정하는 규정에 따라 분양하고, 분양금은 사업비용에 우선 충당한○ 토지 배분에 관한 사항 : 신 건물의 토지는 공유지분으로 주어지되, 그 비율은 ' 집합건물 소유 및 관리에 관한 법률 ' 이 정하는 바에 따른다 . ( 2 ) 피고 조합은 그 후 이 사건 아파트 단지의 구분소유자들로부터 서면으로 창립총회에서의 위 재건축결의를 내용으로 한 이 사건 재건축결의 동의를 받아 조합원 수1, 666명으로 하여 2003. 6. 27. 서울 서초구청장으로부터 재건축조합설립인가를 받았는데 ( 이와 같이 창립총회에서의 재건축결의를 내용으로 한 서면 결의를 ' 2003. 6. 27. 자서면결의 ' 라 한다 ), 당시 아파트 동별 구분소유자 수 및 동의자 수는 아래와 같다 .

* Apartments are identical to the exclusive ownership area in each household, so the ratio of the voting rights of each Dong is equal to the ratio of the consenters.

C. On May 24, 2004, the highest defendant union issued a written peremptory notice to the plaintiffs under the provisions of Article 48 of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (hereinafter referred to as the "Do administration Act") and the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings"). Thus, if no measure is taken within two months after the receipt of the written peremptory notice, the defendant union sent a peremptory notice to the plaintiffs as to whether it will not participate in reconstruction and to exercise the right to demand sale.

D. On February 26, 2005, the Defendant Union decided on a management and disposal plan (not known) with the consent of 1,089 members among the 1,51 members present at the special general meeting on September 24, 2005. The main contents of the management and disposal plan (not known) related to the sale of commercial buildings are as a general rule; in the case of 00 commercial buildings, with the agreement between the members of the commercial building and the association; in the case of 0 commercial buildings, with the result of the lawsuit claiming the sale; however, in principle, in the case of 0 commercial buildings, the amount of purchase shall be decided by the court in accordance with the result of the lawsuit claiming the sale; however, in the case of 0 commercial buildings with the consent of rebuilding resolution and wishing to carry out the independent settlement method such as 0 commercial persons, the Defendant Union again held the special general meeting on September 24, 2005 and 1,031 of the total number of members present at 1,031 members and changed the management and disposal plan with the consent of 945.

2. Determination on the main safety defense of the Defendant Union

The defendant association's right to demand sale occurs at any time when a reconstruction association makes a lawful reconstruction resolution, and the first reconstruction resolution is null and void, and thereafter thereafter a reconstruction resolution is made at any time, or when re-building resolution is made by modifying the first reconstruction resolution, the right to demand sale is generated if the re-building resolution is legitimate. Thus, the issue of whether the exercise of the right to demand sale is legitimate is that the lawsuit of this case must be dismissed as an action for confirmation of non-existence. However, the defendant association's peremptory notice to exercise the right to demand sale against the plaintiffs, and as long as the defendant association claims that the above right to demand sale is based on a written resolution of June 27, 2003, the plaintiffs' right to demand sale is infeasible and dangerous in their own rights or legal status and it is a direct way to resolve the dispute that the plaintiffs' right to demand sale does not exist in the written resolution of June 27, 2003.

27. The plaintiffs' claim to confirm that there is no right to request sale based on their written resolution

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion and the key point of the issues (1) are that the consent form of the reconstruction resolution of this case can not be predicted at all about the cost sharing incurred in the removal of the building and construction of the new building. Thus, the part of the plaintiffs' assertion cannot be predicted on June 2003.

27. The written resolution is null and void, and therefore, the defendant union's right to request sale on June 27, 2003 to the plaintiffs of the defendant union does not exist.

In this regard, the defendant association established the criteria for apportionment of expenses in the written consent for rebuilding of this case, and the said criteria correspond not only to the contract method of the defendant association, but also to the cost calculation method. Thus, the written resolution of June 27, 2003 is valid.

(2) Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the matters concerning the apportionment of rebuilding costs were determined in the written resolution from June 27, 2003, and thus, this issue is examined in the below.

B. According to Article 47 (3) and (4) of the Aggregate Buildings Act as to the validity of a written resolution (1) on June 27, 2003, when a resolution for reconstruction is made in respect of an aggregate building, ① an outline of the design of the new building, ② an estimated amount of expenses incurred in the removal of the building and construction of the new building, ③ matters concerning the apportionment of expenses, ④ matters concerning the apportionment of sectional ownership of the new building, and ④ matters concerning the apportionment of sectional ownership of the new building shall be determined. Such matters shall not be determined in an equitable manner among sectional owners. The above matters concerning the apportionment of rebuilding expenses shall not be determined so that each sectional owner can maintain equity. The above matters concerning the apportionment of rebuilding expenses shall be the basis for selecting whether the sectional owners should participate in the reconstruction while bearing reasonable expenses, or whether the sectional ownership, etc. is sold at the market price and not participating in the reconstruction. The most important and essential part of the contents of the resolution for reconstruction shall be determined to the extent that no agreement on the apportionment of expenses is reached at the stage of rebuilding execution, and the rebuilding resolution shall be null and void unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision.

In addition, matters concerning the allotment of rebuilding cost as an effective requirement for such rebuilding resolution shall be determined by the association's resolution to the extent that it does not reach an agreement on the allotment of expenses again at the stage of rebuilding implementation, such as what kind of apartment houses, commercial buildings can be applied for, how the existing apartment and commercial buildings can be assessed, how the value of newly constructed apartment and commercial buildings can be applied for in the future, and how the cost-sharing should be determined again at the stage of rebuilding implementation, compared with the appraised value of the existing apartment and commercial buildings. (2) As seen above, the defendant association shall make a resolution on rebuilding at the inaugural general meeting held on July 14, 201; (3) the standard for calculating the rebuilding cost of the association's rebuilding operation plan to the extent that the association's final standard for calculating the rebuilding cost can not be established at the end of the above inaugural general meeting; and (4) the standard for calculating the rebuilding cost of the association's rebuilding operation plan to the extent that the association's final standard for calculating the rebuilding cost can not be agreed upon.

In the written resolution of June 27, 2003, the portion of the commercial building among the written resolution of June 27, 2003 is also null and void because it did not specify the apportionments or calculation standards concerning the apportionments of expenses, which are the most important and essential matters among the contents of rebuilding resolution (Provided, That the written resolution of June 27, 2003 does not have the effect of rebuilding resolution regarding the portion of the commercial building, but it is necessary to determine whether the requirements for rebuilding resolution are met separately for each building. Thus, separate from the validity of rebuilding resolution on the portion of the commercial building except the portion of the commercial building, under Article 16 of the Do Government Act, the defendant association's resolution on the apportionments of expenses among the contents of rebuilding resolution stipulated in Article 47 (3) of the Do Government Act should not be specifically decided, but it is sufficient that there is a written consent to the establishment of the building at the time of establishment of the reconstruction association, and according to Article 26 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Do Government Act, the above written consent should be written resolution of the defendant's association.

Therefore, the written resolution of June 27, 2003, which is a premise for the exercise of the right to demand sale, has no effect on the commercial building portion. Therefore, there is no right to demand sale based on the written resolution of June 27, 2003 against the plaintiffs of the defendant union.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.