[1] In a case where the whole building in a single complex is to be reconstructed en bloc, even if part of the building does not meet the requirements for the rebuilding resolution, if the remaining building meets the requirements for the rebuilding resolution in the remaining Dong, whether a legitimate rebuilding resolution has been established (affirmative), and the time when the rebuilding resolution can be withdrawn by means of a written resolution (=before the establishment of rebuilding resolution)

[2] Criteria to determine whether the allotment of sectional ownership of the new building in a large reconstruction project is against the equity among sectional owners

[1] Articles 41 and 47 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings / [2] Article 47 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings

[1] Supreme Court Decision 200Da22812 Decided September 24, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2474) Supreme Court Decision 2003Da5545 Decided June 24, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1238), Supreme Court Decision 2007Da8353, 83540 (Gong2008Ha, 1290) Decided August 21, 2008 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2006Da9842 Decided September 20, 2007 (Gong2006Da64559 Decided June 25, 2009)

[Judgment of the court below]

Plaintiff’s Intervenor 1 and four others (Attorney Seo-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff’s intervenor-appellant)

Doing apartment reconstruction and rearrangement project association (Attorney Kim-chan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na65803 decided November 4, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

Even in cases where intending to reconstruct all buildings in one complex as a whole, whether the requirements for rebuilding resolution are met should be separately determined for each building. Thus, in cases where the requirements for rebuilding resolution are not satisfied for some Dongs, but the remainder of buildings meet the requirements for rebuilding resolution, a legitimate rebuilding resolution is established for the remaining buildings (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da22812, Sept. 24, 2002; 2003Da5455, Jun. 24, 2005). In addition, in a rebuilding resolution by means of a written resolution, the consent for rebuilding resolution may be withdrawn until the rebuilding resolution is duly established (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da8353, 207Da83533, 2007Da83540, Aug. 21, 2008).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, at least 2/3 of the sectional owners in each building, which is a quorum under the former Housing Construction Promotion Act, and at least 4/5 of all sectional owners. As of December 31, 2007, at least 5,030 of all the members declared their consent on the management and disposal plan of this case, at least 81.03% of all the members, and the rate of consent was 81.03% of all the members, and at least 4/5 of the total number of members was met, and the resolution of this case on the remaining Dong except 45, the number of members of each building met more than 2/3 of the total number of members of each building. As such, the resolution of this case on the management and disposal plan of this case met the quorum of 45, and as to the remaining Dong except 45, the resolution on the management and disposal plan of this case was concluded valid after meeting the quorum of 45, and its withdrawal after December 31, 2007, it has no violation of the rules of evidence.

2. As to the third ground for appeal

Since large scale reconstruction projects requires the arrangement and design of new buildings to demonstrate optimal efficiency and feasibility by taking into account the statutory regulations related to the construction of a new building, the location and shape of a site for a new building, accessibility to surrounding convenience facilities, the reputation of the building in which each member previously owned, the distribution of ownership ownership, and the floor area ratio, etc., the sectional ownership of the new building that belongs to each sectional owner in the process is inevitable. Therefore, in determining whether the sectional ownership of a new building goes against the equity among sectional owners, the mere fact that there is a difference in the location, area, and number of floors of each sectional ownership, shall not be considered, but the circumstance leading up to such difference, the layout and design of a new building, the distribution of ownership rights and the size of ownership rights, the size of rights to the previous sectional ownership, the degree of imbalance between the property value of each sectional ownership, the possibility of causing disadvantages to each sectional owner, the possibility of suffering disadvantages to each sectional owner, the adequate resolution for reconstruction or management and disposal plan to the majority members, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du97.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the court below recognized the circumstances as stated in its holding, and determined that although the contents of the cost sharing and the reversion of sectional ownership among the management and disposal plan resolution of this case, from the standpoint of a small-sized ordinary owner, the contents of the cost sharing and the reversion of sectional ownership are not somewhat inconsistent with the formal equity based on the share in the site, it does not go against the substantial equity to the extent that the resolution becomes null and void, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the principle of equity in

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)