[1] Whether a board of representatives of a redevelopment cooperative can exercise the authority of a general meeting on behalf of a redevelopment cooperative under Article 23 (3) 8 (Method of disposing of withheld land, etc.) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (affirmative)

[2] Whether the board of representatives of the redevelopment association can act on behalf of the redevelopment association in a case where a resolution of the general meeting is made without stipulating a "disposition method for the withheld facilities" in the management and disposition plan (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that the defect in the revised management and disposition plan is null and void due to its significant and apparent nature

[1] As long as Article 28 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13823, Dec. 31, 1992) and Article 23 (3) 8 of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 5116, Dec. 29, 1995) of the articles of association of the redevelopment cooperative do not stipulate "the method of disposal of reserved land, etc. under Article 43 of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 5116, Dec. 29, 199)" as a matter of which the board of representatives cannot exercise its authority, the board of representatives may exercise the authority of the general meeting with regard to subparagraph 8 under Article 24

[2] Even if Article 41(4)5 of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 5116 of Dec. 29, 195) and Article 40 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13823 of Dec. 31, 1992), one of the matters to be prescribed in the "management and disposition plan", which is a resolution of a general meeting, for which no authority can be exercised by proxy, the board of representatives cannot act on behalf of the board of representatives, even though it is prescribed in the "a statement of reserved land, etc. under Article 43 of the Act, and the estimated price and disposal method", the resolution of the "management and disposition plan" itself, and the "the method of disposal of withheld facilities" cannot be said to be a resolution of the general meeting.

[3] The case holding that the management and disposal plan to revise the sale price to pay the additional sale price by determining the sale price as an asset is null and void because it is important and obvious that the defect in the management and disposal plan becomes null and void since the sale contract becomes void for the partner who purchased the legitimate

[1] Article 23(3)7 and 8, and Article 24(4) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 5116 of Dec. 29, 1995; Act No. 6852 of Dec. 30, 2002); Article 28 subparag. 2 and Article 40 subparag. 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13823 of Dec. 31, 1992); Article 28 subparag. 2 and Article 40 subparag. 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Redevelopment Act / [2] Article 5 of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 5116 of Dec. 29, 195; Act No. 6852 of Dec. 30, 2002); Article 23(3)7 and Article 24(4)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21381519 of Dec. 219, 2194)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Asian, Attorneys Kim Young-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellant] Housing Improvement Development Cooperatives (Attorney Jeong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu12517 delivered on November 22, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 23 (3) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 516 of Dec. 29, 1995; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides for the resolution of the general meeting of redevelopment cooperatives; Article 43 (4) of the Act provides for the method of disposal of reserved land, etc. under Article 43; Article 24 (4) of the Act provides that the board of representatives may exercise the authority of the general meeting except for the matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree from among the matters to be resolved at the general meeting under Article 23 (3); Article 28 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13823 of Dec. 31, 1992; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree"), which provides for the right of the defendant to dispose of the facilities by proxy under Article 24 (4) 3 of the Act, and Article 28 of the Act provides for the method of disposal and disposal by proxy.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff acquired the right to purchase one unit from the defendant to a withholding facility at the same price as the union members on the premise that the resolution of the council of representatives to sell 25 square meters apartment units among withholding facilities to the plaintiff is valid, is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legality and effectiveness of the resolution of the council of representatives.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The court below determined that, even if the defendant's conversion of the facility into the withholding facility to resolve a long-term dispute arising from the voluntary sale of the facility by the board of representatives and the validity of the voluntary sale of the facility, and can modify the management and disposal plan to the effect of the voluntary sale of the facility, its object and authority shall be limited to the portion of the household for which the effect of the sale of the facility is not recognized, and as long as the plaintiff legally purchased the one household from the defendant, the sale of the facility can not be the object of the alteration. Thus, the management and disposal plan revised to make the plaintiff pay the additional sale of the facility separately from the members of the facility subject to the sale, considering the effect of the initial sale contract against the plaintiff as invalid, it resulted in the plaintiff's unilateral alteration and payment of the price of the facility without going through the liquidation procedure for one member of the facility, and the plaintiff acquired the same status as the member of the association, as the plaintiff's member of the defendant's association, and the legitimacy of the plan can be confirmed by the head of the Gu several times through inquiries, etc.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the importance and clarity of defects.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)