beta
Text
1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed;
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as follows: (a) the court shall revise the term “to reply” of 10 pages 6 of the judgment of the first instance as “to reply”; and (b) the following additional judgment is identical to the ground of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding “the additional judgment” to “the part concerning reply” under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendant asserts that the resolution of the Plaintiff’s general meeting cannot be seen as a resolution for reconstruction stipulated in Article 47 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, since the management body under the Aggregate Buildings Act consists of two aggregate buildings, each unit of Dong, is established automatically, and thus, the management body under the Aggregate Buildings Act must individually pass a rebuilding resolution. Such resolution was not made, and it is not a sectional owner of the loan of this case, but a single neighboring owner of land.
Although the subject of resolution for implementing a reconstruction project under Article 47 (1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act is a management body meeting, if it is an organization consisting of sectional owners and conforms to the purport of Article 23 (1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, it can play a role as a management body regardless of its form of existence or title.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 94Da27199 delivered on August 23, 1996, 2005Da21036 delivered on July 8, 2005, etc.). Meanwhile, Article 47(2) of the Aggregate Buildings Act provides that a rebuilding resolution at a management body meeting shall be adopted by a majority of not less than 4/5 of both sectional owners and voting rights.
On the other hand, the rebuilding resolution was not made by each unit of the loan of this case as alleged by the defendant, but all of the 27 units of the loan of this case except the defendant and the designated party among the 27 units of the loan of this case agreed to rebuilding. Thus, even if the defendant and the designated party excludes the 2 units of the loan of this case under the divided ownership, all of the dong and Tdong owners and voting rights are 4/5 or more of the 5 units of the 27 units of the loan of this case.