[1] The validity of a rebuilding resolution which does not stipulate the allocation or the basis of calculation to the extent that it does not reach an agreement on the apportionment of expenses again at the stage of rebuilding implementation (negative)

[2] In a case where a rebuilding resolution fails to meet the quorum under Article 47 (2) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, whether the right to demand sale under Article 48 of the said Act can be exercised (negative), and in a case where part of the participants in reconstruction thereafter meet the quorum by supporting the rebuilding resolution, whether the defects in the initial rebuilding resolution are cured (negative)

[1] Article 47 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings / [2] Articles 47 and 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da15996 delivered on June 26, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 1998) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da7002 delivered on April 29, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 807) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da7408 delivered on July 4, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1485) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da24061 Delivered on November 10, 200 (Gong201Sang, 12) (Gong2000Da1048 delivered on September 27, 2002)

Plaintiff Apartment Reconstruction Association (Law Firm Geosung, Attorneys Choi Young-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and three others (Seoul Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Jung-ray et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na52496, 52502, 52519 decided July 22, 2004

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Matters concerning the apportionment of rebuilding expenses stipulated in Article 47 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings shall be the basis for selecting whether the sectional owners will participate in the rebuilding with a substantial cost, or whether the sectional owners will sell the sectional ownership and not participate in the rebuilding at the market price. Considering that the contents of the rebuilding resolution are the most important and essential parts of the contents of the rebuilding resolution, a rebuilding resolution which does not provide for the apportionment or calculation standards to the extent that it does not reach an agreement on the rebuilding cost again at the stage of the implementation of rebuilding is null and void unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Da15996, Jun. 26, 1998; 2004Da7408, Jul. 4, 2006). Since the right to demand sale by the sectional owners, etc. under Article 48 of the same Act shall be effective only when the resolution on rebuilding is adopted, it cannot be said that the rebuilding resolution cannot be implemented retroactively by 2000 re-building resolution, even if it satisfies the quorum prescribed in Article 47 (200).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that the resolution for rebuilding on April 21, 2001 did not specifically specify matters concerning the apportionment of rebuilding expenses is null and void, and the resolution for defect recovery at the special general meeting on August 1, 2003 is null and void because it did not meet the special majority quorum as stated in its reasoning, and it cannot be deemed that the above quorum has been subsequently completed until the plaintiff notified the defendants to answer whether to participate in rebuilding, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

In addition, since the assertion of abuse of rights has not been asserted in the court below, there is no ground for incomplete deliberation, and as long as the court below's decision that each of the above reconstruction resolution has no validity is just, the remaining grounds for appeal are merely a criticism on the reasoning that does not affect the conclusion of the court below, and therefore, the grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is 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 Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)