[1] The extent to which the rebuilding resolution must specify the estimated amount and the apportionment of rebuilding expenses

[2] In a case where the first meeting of the management body failed to meet the quorum required for rebuilding at the meeting of the management body, but the sectional owners separately submit a written consent to rebuilding in the course of rebuilding promotion and thereby possess the quorum, whether the rebuilding resolution is effective (affirmative), and whether the rebuilding resolution must be made on the date of the inaugural general meeting of the reconstruction association (negative)

[3] The validity of the rebuilding resolution which clearly violates the equity among sectional owners with respect to the matters regarding the allotment of sectional ownership of the new building (negative) and the criteria for its determination

[4] The scope of "project implementation method" under Article 7 (1) of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents ( December 30, 2002)

[1] Matters concerning estimated amounts and apportionments of rebuilding costs shall be the basis for the sectional owners to choose whether they will participate in reconstruction, or whether they will sell sectional ownership, etc. and not participate in reconstruction according to the market price when they bear reasonable expenses, so it shall not be omitted in the rebuilding resolution. However, it is sufficient to determine the method of determining the apportionment or standard to the extent that it may not be agreed again at the stage of the execution of reconstruction at the stage of the rebuilding execution.

[2] Whether there was a valid rebuilding resolution is not necessarily limited to the first resolution at the meeting of the management body, but even though the consent person at the first meeting of the management body failed to meet the quorum necessary for rebuilding, if the sectional owners submit a separate letter of consent to reconstruction in the course of rebuilding promotion based on this, and thereby, if the quorum is satisfied, a rebuilding resolution separate from the resolution at the meeting of the management body is valid. Furthermore, since the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings does not impose any restriction on the timing of the rebuilding resolution, there is no ground to view that the rebuilding resolution must be made together on the date of the inaugural general meeting of the reconstruction association.

[3] According to Article 47(3) and (4) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, when a resolution for reconstruction is adopted, matters concerning the removal of a building and the apportionment of expenses incurred in constructing a new building and matters concerning the allotment of sectional ownership of a new building shall be determined. Such resolution for reconstruction is null and void unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, inasmuch as the resolution for reconstruction is not determined to maintain equity among sectional owners. Thus, in a case where the resolution for reconstruction is substantially contrary to equity among sectional owners as to the above matters, such resolution for reconstruction is invalid unless there are special circumstances. In determining whether the ownership of a new building goes against equity among sectional owners, the mere fact that there is a difference in the location, area, and number of sectional owners is not simply considered. Furthermore, the circumstance leading up to such difference, the allocation of a new building and the rationality and economic feasibility of the layout of a new building and the distribution of ownership shares, the size of rights, equity in allocation of sectional ownership, the degree of imbalance in each sectional ownership, the possibility of causing disadvantages to each sectional owner's property value, the majority's resolution and management plan.

[4] Article 7 (1) of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “former Act”) provides that “The progress measures for project implementation shall be implemented after obtaining approval of a project plan or authorization for project implementation under the previous Act shall be governed by the previous provisions.” In principle, when obtaining approval of a project plan for reconstruction projects before the implementation of the former Act, the administrative agency’s involvement shall be terminated, and the members shall acquire the right to purchase the building (the status of being selected as occupants). The original reconstruction association’s operation of the reconstruction association and the distribution of rights and the transfer of ownership of the newly constructed building or building site shall be decided autonomously by the general civil law, so it shall not be deemed that the necessity or rationality for the implementation of the remaining project in accordance with the procedure or method under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “former Act”). Article 6 of the former Act provides that “The new Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Facilities shall be excluded from the implementation of the new Act’s implementation of the project.”

[1] Article 47 (3) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings / [2] Article 41 (1) and Article 47 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings / [3] Article 47 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings / [4] Article 7 (1) of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 6893 of May 29, 2003), Article 6 (3) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No.

[1] [2] [3] Supreme Court Decision 2006Da9842 Decided September 20, 2007 / [1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da545 Decided June 24, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1238) Supreme Court Decision 2005Da1952, 19569 Decided February 23, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 482) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da1596 Decided June 26, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 1998) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da11404 Decided June 9, 2005 (Gong205Ha, 1128)

Plaintiff 1 and 12 others (Attorneys O Chang-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (Attorney Jin-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na95046 decided September 6, 2006

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

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

1. As to the invalidity, etc. of rebuilding resolution

A. Matters concerning estimated amounts and apportionments of rebuilding costs shall be the basis for the sectional owners to choose whether they will participate in rebuilding, or whether they will sell sectional ownership, etc. in accordance with the market price and not to participate in rebuilding. Thus, it shall not be omitted in rebuilding resolution. However, the method of determining the amount shall be sufficient to determine the apportionment or standard to the extent that it may not be agreed again at the stage of rebuilding execution (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Da15996, Jun. 26, 1998; 2005Da1952, 19569, Feb. 23, 2006, etc.).

The lower court determined that the Defendant Union obtained the consent of 83.7% of the sectional owners at the time of obtaining the authorization for the establishment of the housing association from the head of Songpa-gu on December 16, 200 after the resolution for reconstruction at the inaugural general meeting of May 29, 200; the Defendant Union obtained the written consent from all sectional owners except four persons who did not consent until October 31, 2003; the Defendant Union obtained the written consent for reconstruction at the time of resolution from the sectional owners before and after the resolution of May 29, 199, “the resolution and project plan” submitted from the sectional owners before and after the resolution of May 29, 199, included the outline of new housing site size, size, total floor area of the building, and the total expenses required for the reconstruction in this case; the building cost of the new building in this case shall be appropriated to the sale of surplus building; the building cost of the new building in this case shall be calculated by dividing the size of each association member’s housing unit by the size of each association and the size of the general meeting.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of rebuilding resolution as to the estimated amount and apportionment of rebuilding costs, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

In addition, according to the facts duly established by the court below, it is sufficient that the defendant union presented the floor area ratio at the stage of the rebuilding resolution, presented the estimation and allocation criteria of each ordinary share, and further, it is not necessary to present again the allocation or allocation criteria of the partitioned building that is newly constructed after being subdivided by the flat type of each union member. Thus, the argument in the ground of appeal that the rebuilding resolution in this case is null and void due to the lack of setting the allocation or allocation criteria cannot be accepted.

B. Whether there was a valid rebuilding resolution or not must be limited to the first resolution at the meeting of the management body, and even if the consent person at the first meeting of the management body failed to meet the quorum necessary for rebuilding, it should be viewed that if the number of sectional owners meet the quorum necessary for rebuilding in the course of rebuilding promotion by separately submitting a written consent to the purport that the rebuilding should be conducted, the rebuilding resolution or not, from the resolution at the meeting of the management body, is valid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da5455, Jun. 24, 2005; 2005Da1952, 19569, Feb. 23, 2006; 2005Da19569, Feb. 24, 2006; therefore, the rebuilding resolution or not must be held on the date of the inaugural general meeting of the reconstruction association (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da545479, Jun. 24, 2005).

The court below decided to the effect that the rebuilding resolution on May 29, 199 is valid since the inaugural general meeting obtained the consent of the sectional owners of 83.7% from the head of Songpa-gu to the time of obtaining the approval for the establishment of the housing association from the head of the time of obtaining the approval for the establishment of the housing association, as long as the consent of 83.7% was obtained on December 16, 200, and the rebuilding resolution on May 29, 199.

C. In light of the records, there is no evidence to find that the contents of the resolution on the management and disposal plan of this case have lost their identity compared to those of the association members as stipulated in the rebuilding resolution, and thus, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the resolution on the management and disposal plan of this case requires the special multiple quorum cannot be accepted.

2. As to the violation of the principle of equity in relation to the allocation of flats, etc.

According to Article 47(3) and (4) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, matters concerning the removal of buildings and the apportionment of expenses incurred in constructing a new building and matters concerning the ownership of sectional ownership of the new building shall be determined. Such matters shall not be determined in an equitable manner among sectional owners. Thus, if the resolution for reconstruction considerably violates equity among sectional owners regarding the above matters, such resolution for reconstruction shall be null and void unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da11404, Jun. 9, 2005). However, in a large scale reconstruction project, it shall be determined that the regulation under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the location and shape of the site for the new building, accessibility to convenience facilities around the previous building, the allocation and design of the new building to demonstrate optimal efficiency and feasibility of the sectional ownership, the size of sectional ownership rights vested in each sectional owner and the size of stories of the new building and the size of sectional ownership rights vested in each sectional owner, the economic difference between the size of sectional ownership and the value of each new building, and the reasonable ownership ownership.

The lower court determined that: (a) in calculating the amount of rights of 15 square meters and 17 square meters of apartment buildings owned by members, the rights per square meter cannot be deemed to accord with equity in proportion to the area of each apartment complex; (b) granting preferential rights to 17 square meters of the members who have higher rights to the members of the 15 square meters of the 15 square meters of the 15 square meters of the 17th square meters of the 17th square meters of the 17th square meters of the 17th square meters of the 17th square meters of the 17th square meters of the 17th square meters of the 17th square meters of the 17th square meters of the 17th square meters of the 17th square meters of the 17th square meters of the 17th square meters of the 17th square meters of the 17th square meters of the 17th square meters of the 17th square meters of the 17th square meters of the 17th square meters of the 20th square meters of the 7th square.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of equity in the resolution of the management and disposition plan. Furthermore, as long as it cannot be deemed that the ordinary allocation, etc. of the draft of the management and disposition plan of this case did not change the contents of the rebuilding resolution to maintain equity in relation to the reversion of the sectional ownership, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the resolution of the instant management and disposition plan of this case requires a special majority

In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below judged that the plaintiff's assertion that the right to the 15 square type and 17 square type apartment house of this case was unreasonably determined based on the assessment of the amount, was insufficient to recognize the appraisal by only the evidence in its holding, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In light of the records, the court below cannot be deemed to have violated the logical and empirical rules while selecting evidence and comparing and evaluating the probative value of evidence in this part. Thus, the argument in the grounds of appeal disputing this cannot be accepted.

3. On May 29, 2004, as to the forgery, etc. of a written resolution on the resolution of the general assembly of May 29, 2004

The court below held that there is no evidence to acknowledge defects such as forgery of a written resolution, the difference between the seal imprint certificate and the seal imprint, and the omission of the seal imprint with respect to the resolution of the general meeting on May 29, 2004. The court below did not accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing this part of the evidence selection and comparison and evaluation of the probative value of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

4. As to the method of written resolution regarding the amendment of the articles of association and the scope of delegation to the board of representatives

A. Article 7 (1) of the Addenda to the 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”) provides that “The progress measures for project implementation shall be implemented after obtaining approval of a project plan or authorization for project implementation under the previous Act” shall be governed by the previous provisions. When obtaining approval of a reconstruction project plan prior to the enforcement of the former Act, in principle, an administrative agency’s involvement shall be terminated, and members shall acquire the right to purchase the land (the status of selection as occupants) (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du5369, Jun. 15, 2007). The main provision of Article 7 (1) of the Addenda to 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”). Thus, it shall not be deemed that the provisions of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Areas and Dwelling Areas shall be excluded from its application.”

Therefore, in the case of a reconstruction association, Article 7 (1) of the Addenda to the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas shall include all the methods and procedures stipulated in Chapter III of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, except in extenuating circumstances. Therefore, matters concerning such methods and procedures shall be governed by the previous provisions.

B. According to Articles 20(4) and 17 of the former Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (amended by Act No. 7335, Jan. 14, 2005; hereinafter “former Act”), and Article 28(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18594, Dec. 3, 2004; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the same Act”), an amendment to the articles of association requires the head of a Si/Gun to obtain approval with the consent of at least 2/3 of the members, and the consent should be attached by the written consent using a seal imprint, and it is impossible to verify that the above written consent is valid by the head of the Si/Gun without the consent of the association’s consent affixed. In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the method of written resolution for the implementation of the project is included in the method stipulated in Article 7(1) of the Addenda of the former Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwellings.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation and application of Article 7 (1) of the Addenda to the former Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and the method of written resolution as otherwise

C. Article 24(3)10 of the amended Act provides that "the formulation and alteration of a management and disposal plan under Article 48 (1) (excluding a minor alteration under the proviso of Article 48(1))" shall be one of the matters to be resolved by a general meeting. Article 28(4) of the amended Act provides that "the preparation of a project implementation plan in the case of a housing reconstruction project shall not require the consent of landowners and landowners, etc." In the case of a housing reconstruction project, Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the matters that the board of representatives can not act on behalf of the general meeting among the matters to be resolved by the general meeting," and Article 24(3)10 of the amended Act provides that "the preparation and alteration of a project implementation plan shall be excluded from the matters to be resolved by a specific general meeting," and Article 24(3) of the amended Act provides that "the formulation and alteration of a project implementation plan shall be included in the method of the former Act and Article 25(2)28(4) and (3) of the amended Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the defendant union presented the following items: (a) at the special meeting of May 29, 2004, the following items: (b) the obligation of the members of the defendant union or the modification of the management and disposal plan that does not seriously entail the expenses to be paid by the members of the defendant union; and (c) other matters necessary for the promotion of the project or minor modification of the project plan are required to be delegated to the board of representatives for the implementation of the project; and (d) the defendant union presented the background of the proposal to "I would like to implement a successful reconstruction project by minimizing the increase in the project cost due to the delay in the project by entrusting the board of representatives with respect to minor matters in the process of the project; and (b) after the proposal of the management and disposal plan, I would like to implement the reconstruction project in a successful manner by minimizing the increase in the project cost due to the increase in the sale price of the general apartment after the plan was approved by the board of representatives, instead of holding a separate general meeting, and reported in writing to the members."

In light of the above legal principles, since Articles 24 and 25(2) of the amended Urban Improvement Act and Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act apply to the delegation resolution of the members of the defendant association as above to the board of representatives, such resolution cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that it violated the above provisions. Furthermore, in light of the motive and circumstance of the above agenda, the necessity of delegation to the large committee, and the scope of delegation, etc., it is difficult to view the above delegation resolution as an invalid resolution to deprive or punish the power of the general meeting of the defendant association.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of Article 7 (1) of the Addenda to the former Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of delegation to the

5. 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 Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)