[2] The rights and obligations of the person who became a partner by the rebuilding agreement

[3] The legal nature of authorization for establishing an association, etc. under Article 44(1) of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act, and whether such authorization has an internal judicial relation between the housing association and its members, or between its members (negative)

[4] The case holding that, before a reconstruction association approves the competent authority for the amendment of the articles of association of a reconstruction association, the allocation of the same amount to members is lawful pursuant to the amended articles of association

[5] Whether the court's rejection of the application for resumption of argument after the closing of argument constitutes an unlawful cause for incomplete hearing (negative in principle)

1. As to the remainder of the grounds of appeal except for the grounds of appeal as follows 2.

Article 7 (1) of the Addenda to the former Act on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (amended by Act No. 6852 of Dec. 30, 2002 and enforced on July 1, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act") provides that "any project is being implemented after obtaining approval of a project plan or authorization to implement a project under the previous Act shall be governed by the previous Act."

Meanwhile, in a case where a sectional owner of an aggregate building holds an assembly for resolution for reconstruction under Article 47 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings 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. 6852, Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter “the Housing Promotion Act”) in the course of a reconstruction project in the course of a reconstruction project by a sectional owner of an aggregate building in the course of a reconstruction project, the resolution adopted at the meeting is legally divided into one reconstruction resolution and one association establishment act of a reconstruction association by the managing body consisting of each building, even if it appears to be one externally, and the resolution adopted at the meeting for the establishment of a reconstruction association is legally divided into one association. Since a rebuilding resolution does not constitute a part of a reconstruction association establishment act, even if the rebuilding resolution is null and void, it cannot be said that the resolution was naturally invalidated until the inaugural general meeting for the establishment of a reconstruction association (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da21036, Jul. 8, 2005).

In addition, in order to achieve the purpose of the reconstruction project of an association, a person who becomes a partner by the rebuilding agreement shall bear the duty to transfer the existing housing and land owned within the project area to the association for the purpose of trust and have the right to purchase new housing in response thereto (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da5149 delivered on April 27, 199, etc.).

On the other hand, according to the provisions of Article 44 (1) of the Jeju Promotion Act, when a housing association is formed to build its members' housing, it shall obtain authorization from the head of the competent Si, etc., and when it is intended to change the contents of the authorization or dissolve the housing association, the authorization act of the competent market, etc. here is a supplementary act to complete the legal validity by supplementing the basic act subject to the authorization (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu7338, Dec. 12, 1995; 9Du1854, Sept. 5, 200; 9Du1854, Sept. 5, 200). It does not affect internal judicial relations between the housing association, its members, or its members (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2002Du12, Mar. 11, 2002).

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidences. The defendant union obtained the approval of the project plan on June 30, 2003, prior to the enforcement of the former Do Government Act, and held that the method of implementing the housing reconstruction project of the defendant union applies not the former Do Government Act, but the method of implementing the housing reconstruction project of the defendant union. Although the defendant union decided to reconstruct the apartment of this case at its inaugural general meeting on April 1, 2001, it did not include matters concerning the removal of buildings and the apportionment of expenses for construction of new buildings, even though the resolution was not effective, the parties to the resolution are members of the defendant association. Since the plaintiff (appointed parties) and the appointed parties (hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiff et al.") are members of the defendant association, the division of the building of this case is not subject to the claim for sale, and thereafter the defendant union did not obtain the rebuilding resolution which included the above share of expenses by holding a general meeting of association members on May 17, 2003, and determined that the rebuilding resolution was legitimate by the plaintiff's general meeting of 30.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, the grounds for appeal, the misapprehension of legal principles, or the violation of the precedents.

2. As to the ground of appeal on the claim for cash settlement

In a case where a party has filed an application for the resumption of pleadings for the purpose of defense and proof after the closing of pleadings, and barring any special circumstance, such as the fact that the result of the judgment may vary depending on the burden of proof, the issue of whether the party has received an application for the resumption of pleadings belongs to the court's discretion. Thus, the party's failure to accept the application for the resumption of pleadings after the closing of pleadings cannot be deemed to constitute an unlawful cause for lack of oral deliberation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu1230, Dec. 8, 1987; 95Da2333, Feb. 9, 196).

According to the records, the attorney of the plaintiff et al. added a preliminary claim seeking cash liquidation at the first date for pleading and the application for change of lawsuit filed at the court below's first date for pleading. After the market price appraisal on the partitioned building owned by the plaintiff et al., the above claim was withdrawn at the second date for pleading of the court below. The court below can find out the facts that the plaintiff et al. closed the pleading on the corresponding date for pleading, and the Appointor 11 submitted the reference preparatory document to

Examining these facts in light of the above legal principles, the court below is just in making a decision on the plaintiff's request for cash settlement and did not resume the pleading, and there is no violation of law such as omission of judgment or incomplete hearing as alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)