Ownership relationship of apartment houses newly built by a housing association to be sold to the general public (=collective ownership of all the members of the association) and management and disposal methods thereof.

Articles 275 and 276 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 2005Da52214 Decided December 13, 2007 (Gong2008Sang, 3)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Park Young-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Scattering East Forest Housing Association (Law Firm Democratic Law, Attorneys Yoon Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na34069 decided September 30, 2010

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after compiling the adopted evidence. The court below concluded each of the instant sales contracts between the plaintiffs and the new stock company (hereinafter "new stock company") which was delegated with the authority to conclude the sales contract by the defendant association with the new company (hereinafter "new stock company") to purchase each of the real estate listed in the attached list of the judgment below (hereinafter "each of the real estate of this case"), which was an apartment unit for voluntary sale generated by the members of the defendant association from the withdrawal of the association, as members of the association, and determined that it is difficult to view the plaintiffs as members of the defendant association as

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no illegality in violation of the rules of logic and experience and free evaluation of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A building newly built and completed by a housing association as its principal and which belongs to the general public other than its members belongs to the collective ownership of all its members, and if the articles of association or regulations of the housing association stipulate the management and disposition of collective property, it shall comply with such provisions, and if there is no articles of association or regulations, a resolution of the general meeting of its members shall be adopted, and such act without going through such procedures shall be null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5214, Dec. 13, 2007, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after compiling the adopted evidence, and determined to the effect that each of the sales contracts of this case was valid even if the defendant union and the new representative of the defendant union concluded each of the sales contracts of this case with the plaintiffs within the scope delegated by the union rules, as long as they concluded each of the sales contracts of this case with the plaintiffs as to each of the real estate of this case within the scope delegated by the union rules.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it does not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Civil Act and the Housing Act

3. As to the third ground for appeal

The Defendant’s ground of appeal on this part was erroneous as alleged in the lower court’s additional determination. However, as seen earlier, the lower court’s primary determination that each of the Defendant and the new representatives of each of the Defendant concluded each of the instant sales contracts with the Plaintiffs effective within the scope delegated pursuant to the Union Regulations was justifiable. However, even if the lower court’s error was alleged in the part of the additional determination, this could not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the allegation in the ground of appeal on this part is without merit, without having to further examine

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 Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)