Plaintiff 1 and six others (Attorney Kim Si-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Man-ri Second Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Song Won-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

April 30, 2009

1. The plaintiffs confirm that they are the sole partners of their respective defendant.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 25, 2007, pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Mayor of Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”) designated 2 Man-dong, Jung-gu, Seoul as a multi-family housing redevelopment project zone of 66,852 square meters (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”) and publicly announced as a multi-family housing redevelopment project zone of 2007-387 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City public notice. The Defendant association is the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Association approved by the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on May 15, 2008 for the purpose of implementing the housing redevelopment project in the rearrangement zone

B. The Plaintiffs are co-owners of buildings and land located within the instant rearrangement zone, and the specific ownership relationship is as follows.

① Plaintiff 1 and 2: (a) 2, Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul, had been registered on May 23, 1985, as to the portion in which Nonparty 1 had been registered on the ownership site of 2.98/132.8 square meters, among the portion in which it was constructed on October 27, 1984; and (b) the remaining portion in which it was registered on May 23, 1985, as to the portion in which it was registered on the ownership of 35.36/88.4 square meters on the ground reinforced concrete structure on the ground (number 2 omitted); and (c) Nonparty 1 had been registered on May 23, 198, as to the portion in which it was registered on May 23, 198, the remaining portion in which it was registered on June 13, 198, and the remaining portion in which it was registered on May 4, 1984.

② Plaintiff 3 and 4: 2, Jung-gu, Seoul, made a registration of transfer on August 26, 1986, on the 1/3 share of 200.8 square meters in the underground floor of 100.8 square meters (which was constructed on July 13, 1984 and approved for use on December 31, 1985) among 2, 3, 6, 26, 3, 26, 26, 3, 26, 3, 26, 26, 26, 26, 3, 26, 3, 26, 26, 3, 36, 36, 36, 202, 26, 260, 360, 260, 360, 260, 2609, 2609, 364, 1985).

③ Plaintiff 5 and 6: 2, Jung-gu, Seoul, 1982. 8. 7. 7. 82, the registration of Non-party 2 was made under the name of Non-party 2, 97. 8, 97. 9 on June 30, 1993, on the non-party 2, the remaining 97. 197. 82, the registration of transfer was made under the name of Non-party 2, 97. 97. 9 on the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, 97. 97. 8. 97. 97. 97. 97. 97. 97. 97. 97. 197. 197. 1. 97. 1. 97. 1. 1.

④ Plaintiff 7: 2, Jung-gu, Seoul, made the registration of transfer of Nonparty 15.5 m. on April 1, 1985 on the non-party 13, 14, and 15.56 m. (the approval for use was obtained on February 16, 1985) of the underground floor of 5.56 m.5 m. (the non-party 13, 14, and 15 m.) on the non-party 15 m. (the number omitted) 2 and cement 198m. (the non-party 16m.) on April 18, 1985, on the non-party 16m. (the non-party 16m.) on the non-party 18m. (the non-party 16m. registration was made on December 17, 1986).

A 2. 1-58 square meters of the Plaintiff’s building site and the co-ownership of 10,000 square meters in the main body (number 2 omitted), 3.5 square meters of 1-3 stories of 50.58 square meters of 35 square meters, 2-2 site ownership of 132.8 square meters of 138.4 square meters of 88.4 square meters of underground floor (number 3 omitted), 2.4 square meters of 1-3 stories of 1-4 and 13.09/260 of 260.9 square meters of 4.5 square meters of 57.7 square meters of 1-65 square meters of 37.7 square meters of 47.7 square meters of 25 square meters of 10.8 square meters of 265 square meters of 10.8 square meters of 27.65 square meters of 27.75 square meters of 27.74 square meters of 27.65 square meters of 27.365 square meters of each underground floor and 37.4.65 square meters of

C. The underground floor of each of the above collaborative housing buildings (hereinafter “each of the buildings of this case”) showed the ownership relationship in which several persons own share and own share, as seen above, after being registered as a section of the real estate register or a single building. However, in substance, each of the co-owners has been separately controlled and managed by each of the co-owners as an independent residential space in which each of the co-owners is able to live independently with separate entrances, kitchens, toilets, toilets, etc., and the taxes and public charges such as property tax and electricity charges have been imposed separately. Each co-owner has transferred his share of co-ownership by means of transferring his share, regardless of other co-owners. The plaintiffs also received the registration of transfer as to co-ownership in the underground floor of each of the buildings of this case as well as the share of the underground floor and the site of the building.

D. The relevant provisions of the articles of association of the defendant association are as follows.

Article 9 (Qualifications, etc. for Cooperative Members)

(1) Members of a cooperative shall be the owners of land or buildings within a project implementation district or persons with superficies thereof (hereinafter referred to as "owners of land, etc.").

(4) Where a household member comprised of one household owns the ownership of land or a building and superficies thereon, and where one (Partition) ownership belongs to several co-ownership, the number of members representing such persons shall be deemed to be one member. In such cases, the number of members shall be designated as a representative member and shall prepare a written consent for the appointment of the representative member in attached Form and report it to the Cooperative, and the juristic act as a representative member shall be conducted by the representative

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1-2 and Gap evidence Nos. 3-20 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Main safety defense of the Defendant Union

The defendant union did not deny the status of the plaintiffs' union members, and the plaintiffs' individual members of the collective housing unit are determined only when a future management and disposal plan is formulated. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no interest to seek confirmation that each person is the member of the collective housing unit before the establishment of the management and disposal plan.

B. Determination

The plaintiffs have sought confirmation against the defendant association that they are the sole partners of the defendant association. The plaintiffs are affected by the rights and obligations of the plaintiffs as the members of the association depending on whether they are the sole partners of the defendant association or jointly with other co-owners of the buildings, etc. in which the plaintiffs own co-ownership shares. Since the defendant association denies the status of the plaintiffs as the sole partners, the plaintiffs have a benefit to seek confirmation against the defendant association that they are the sole partners of the defendant association in order to remove the existing risks and omissions in their rights or legal status, and the above safety defense of the defendant association is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The underground floor of each building of this case is divided into several households with independent housing structure, and it has been dealt with as an object of independent ownership, such as transfer by each household of the corresponding co-ownership shares through the transfer of the corresponding co-ownership shares. As such, the Plaintiffs, who actually divided the specific households of each underground floor of the building of this case, have the status of independent members of the defendant association.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) In the case of a housing redevelopment project, the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions (the owners or superficies of land or buildings located within the rearrangement zone) shall be the members of the housing redevelopment project association, but when the ownership and superficies of land or buildings belong to two or more co-owners, one representative shall be appointed (Article 2 subparag. 9 and Article 19(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions). The Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions (the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions) shall, in principle, sell multi-family housing constructed within the rearrangement zone to the owners of land, etc. located within the rearrangement zone, but the owners of land, etc. who do not meet the standards for the amount, size, acquisition time or type prescribed by City/Do municipal ordinances may be excluded from the objects of parcelling-out (Article 52(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions (the Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions). 2)

According to the above relevant laws and regulations, in order for co-owners of a house owned by several persons to be recognized as one person who is not a co-owner of a house who is not a co-owner of a house, they shall be "multi-family house which has completed the registration of shares or sectional ownership by household on or before January 15, 1997" or "multi-family house which has obtained a building permit before the introduction of the multi-family house system on or before April 21, 1990 and completed the registration of shares or sectional ownership by household". The purport is to exceptionally recognize the eligibility of multi-family house as the object of parcelling-out in cases where a multi-family house (including a de facto multi-family house) has an independent structure from the stage of design and construction by reflecting the fact that the multi-family house (including a de facto multi-family house) is traded by a household

(2) In the instant case, each household of each underground floor of the instant building has been actually used as an independent residential building with a structure that enables a person to carry on an independent residential life from the construction stage to the middle half of the 1970s, and the share registration corresponding to that household has been made and traded by household through the method of transfer of share registration. On or before April 21, 1990, the shares registration was made by each household. Cooperative house was defined as one of multi-household houses [limited to multi-household houses under the Enforcement Decree of the former Building Act (Presidential Decree No. 12403, Feb. 24, 1988)] and multi-family houses before the introduction of the multi-family house system, and appears to have carried out functions similar to that of multi-family houses [the Plaintiffs are deemed to have the status of multi-family houses under Article 4(2) proviso of the former Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Implementation of Housing Improvement Projects (repealed by Ordinance No. 2353, May 7, 1988].

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Han-soo (Presiding Judge)