[1] In a case where a partnership is established in the course of a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a resolution of selecting a contractor by the committee for the establishment of a partnership under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, whether a partnership succeeds to the legal status of the committee for promotion in a lawsuit

[2] The case holding that in case where Gap's legal status of the promotion committee was succeeded to Gap's partnership and Eul et al were entitled to seek confirmation of invalidity of the resolution, in a case where Eul et al. filed a lawsuit against the promotion committee on the resolution of the selection of the executor at the residents' general meeting against Eul et al., who is the owner of the land in the business area, etc., and Eul et al. was established during the lawsuit pending, the resolution was sought

[1] The rights and obligations related to the affairs performed by the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 6893, May 29, 2003; hereinafter “former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “former Act”), which is a non-corporate group, shall be deemed to be a comprehensive succession to an association established with the approval of establishment under Article 16 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “former Act”). Even if the duties performed by the promotion committee do not belong to the scope of duties of the promotion committee after the interpretation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it is reasonable to view that all of the affairs performed by the promotion committee is deemed to have been comprehensively succeeded to the legal status of the promotion committee in a lawsuit pending in the

[2] The case holding that in case where Gap's promotion committee for the establishment of Gap's housing redevelopment project partnership (hereinafter "promotion committee") filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution against the promotion committee's committee on the resolution of the selection of the contractor at the residents' general meeting, Eul et al., the owner of the land within the business area, and Eul et al. filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution while the lawsuit was pending, Eul et al. filed a motion for resumption of lawsuit, the court held that the legal status of the promotion committee was succeeded to Gap et al. in the lawsuit pending since Eul et al. succeeded to the rights and obligations related to the duties performed by the promotion committee under Article 15 (4) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 6893 of May 29, 2003) and the lawsuit for confirmation of invalidity can be a valid and appropriate means for resolving the dispute.

[1] Articles 14(1), 15(4) and (5), 16, and 85 subparag. 4 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 6893, May 29, 2003); Article 22 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18146, Nov. 29, 2003); Articles 52 and 243 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 14(1), 15(4) and (5), 16, and 85 subparag. 4 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 6893, May 29, 2003); Article 252 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents; Article 252 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da44352 decided Nov. 26, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 190)

Plaintiff 1 and 11 others (Attorney Kim Byung-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Song-sop et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na29934 decided February 11, 2009

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Where the rights and obligations of a corporation are succeeded to a newly incorporated corporation pursuant to the provisions of a law, the legal status of the corporation shall also be succeeded to the newly incorporated corporation in a pending lawsuit in the absence of special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da44352, Nov. 26, 2002). The same applies to cases where the rights and obligations of a non-incorporated corporation are succeeded to a newly incorporated corporation pursuant to the provisions of a law.

Article 15 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 6852, Dec. 30, 202; hereinafter “former Act”) provides that “The Promotion Committee for the Establishment of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Promotion Committee”) shall report the duties performed by the Promotion Committee to a general meeting under Article 24, and the rights and duties performed by the Promotion Committee shall be comprehensively succeeded.” Article 85 subparag. 4 of the same Act provides that “The Promotion Committee shall transfer accounting books and related documents stating spent expenses to the Association within 30 days from the date of authorization for the establishment of the Promotion Committee,” and Article 85 subparag. 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “The person who continues to operate the Promotion Committee shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding 20,000 won” (Article 15(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Projects).

In light of the contents, form, and purport of the relevant statutes, even though the rights and obligations related to the duties performed by the promotion committee, which is non-corporate association, do not belong to the scope of the business performed by the promotion committee after the interpretation of the relevant statutes, it is reasonable to view that all of the rights and obligations performed by the promotion committee, even if the duties performed by the promotion committee do not come into force after the establishment of the promotion committee’s business, shall be comprehensively comprehensively succeeded to the association established by obtaining a disposition of approving the establishment of the promotion committee under Article 16 of the former Urban Improvement Act. Therefore, if a partnership was established while disputing the invalidity of

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the promotion committee for the establishment of the Yongsan 6 Housing Redevelopment Project Association (hereinafter “the promotion committee of this case”) which was approved on March 15, 2006 shall hold a residents’ general meeting on May 29 of the same year and passed a resolution to select Samsung C&T corporation as the executor of housing redevelopment improvement project implemented by the defendant association to be established as the project implementer of the housing redevelopment project implemented by the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the resolution of this case”). The plaintiffs, the owners of the land in the above project area, etc., filed a lawsuit against the promotion committee of this case on October 11, 2007 seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of this case on February 15, 2008, the promotion committee of this case shall be deemed to have been awarded a favorable judgment on February 15, 2008, and the plaintiffs filed an appeal against the above decision of this case with the Seoul High Court 2008Na2934, respectively, and the court below revoked the approval of this case 209.

In light of the above legal principles, since the rights and obligations related to the business performed by the promotion committee of this case under Article 15 (4) of the former Urban Improvement Act was comprehensively succeeded to the defendant association while the defendant association was established during the continuation of the judgment of the court below, the legal status of the promotion committee of this case in the lawsuit of this case shall also be deemed to have been succeeded to the defendant association. Therefore, the judgment of the court below on the premise that the defendant association is the litigation acceptance agent of the promotion committee of this case is just in the lawsuit of this case, and there is

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that since the plaintiffs' claim by the lawsuit of this case is invalid between the defendant union and the association succeeding all rights and obligations of the promotion committee of this case, it cannot be deemed that the lawsuit of this case is subject to confirmation of legal relations in the past, as alleged by the defendant union, and that the defendant union still sought rejection or dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of this case even though the defendant union did not have the effect of the resolution of this case, the defendant union's response in the litigation of this case cannot be completely ruled out the possibility that the redevelopment project of this case will be developed based on the contents of the resolution of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs, the owners of the land in the business area, etc., who are the owners of the land within the business area, still have concerns and risks in their rights and legal status until the new contractor is selected by separate procedures or by the resolution of the general meeting of association and association, the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of this case can be a valid and appropriate means

In light of the above legal principles, the above judgment below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in confirmation as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. The fact-finding that there is no benefit in the lawsuit is determined on the basis of the standard as at the time of the closing of argument in the fact-finding court (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da26367, Dec. 24, 2009). Thus, the argument that the defendant union held a general meeting after the pronouncement of the judgment below and passed a resolution to select a new contractor shall be asserted as a new fact-finding on the ground of the circumstances after the closing of argument in the fact-finding court. Thus,

3. As to ground of appeal No. 3

Since it is reasonable to deem that the selection of a construction project for a housing redevelopment project under the former Urban Improvement Act is not a matter belonging to the scope of the authority of the general meeting of the owner of the land held by the promotion committee or the promotion committee, but rather a matter belonging to the authority of the general meeting of the association, the resolution of the general meeting of residents or the land held at the promotion committee shall be deemed null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da6298, Jun. 12,

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the resolution of this case in which the committee of promotion of this case selected Samsung C&T corporation as the executor of the redevelopment project of this case is null and void, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation and application of the former Urban Improvement Act concerning the selection of the contractor.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)