[1] Property ownership relationship of a reconstruction association under the Housing Construction Promotion Act and method of disposing of its property

[2] The case holding that the representative of a reconstruction association becomes null and void of an act of disposal of its property without a resolution of a general meeting of partners

[1] A reconstruction association established under the Housing Construction Promotion Act constitutes a non-corporate association under the Civil Act. If the entity of a reconstruction association is a non-corporate association, commercial buildings newly constructed and completed as the principal body of the reconstruction association belongs to the collective ownership of all members of the association. If there is any provision in the articles of association or regulations of the reconstruction association regarding the management and disposition of collective ownership, it shall be complied with, and if there is no articles of association or regulations, it shall be resolved at the general meeting of the association members.

[2] The case holding that the representative of a reconstruction association becomes null and void of a disposal act of the partnership property without a resolution of a general meeting of partners

[1] Articles 275 and 276(1) of the Civil Act, Article 3 subparag. 9 and 44-3 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act / [2] Articles 275 and 276(1) of the Civil Act, Article 3 subparag. 9 and 44-3 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da40915 delivered on January 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 754 delivered on October 25, 1996) Supreme Court Decision 95Da5686 delivered on October 25, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3409) Supreme Court Decision 98Da3634 delivered on December 10, 199 (Gong200Sang, 158) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da18965 delivered on April 24, 1992 (Gong192, 1671), Supreme Court Decision 96Da18656 delivered on August 20, 196 (Gong196Ha, 2789), Supreme Court Decision 200Da208108 delivered on August 28, 200 (Gong208400).

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

Freeboard Rebuilding Housing Association

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na16 delivered on January 19, 2000

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Under the Housing Construction Promotion Act, the court below rejected the defendant's 14th anniversary of the above 9th anniversary of the above 9th anniversary of the fact that the plaintiff's 10th anniversary of the above 101th anniversary of the above 10th anniversary of the loan agreement, the non-party was established with housing owners within the area for rebuilding the apartment on the 194th anniversary of the above 9th anniversary of the loan agreement, and the non-party was in office as the head of the defendant's association during the period from August 17, 199 to January 18, 198. The articles of association of the defendant's association stipulate that the head of the association shall exercise overall control over the affairs of the association on behalf of the plaintiff 19th 4th 9th 9th 1st 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 1000 1st 194th 1993

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

The defendant association, a reconstruction association established under the Housing Construction Promotion Act, constitutes a non-corporate body under the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da40915, Jan. 26, 1996; 95Da56866, Oct. 25, 1996; 96Da2387, May 30, 1997; 98Da36344, Dec. 10, 1999). If the substance of the defendant association is a non-corporate body, the commercial building of this case newly constructed by the defendant association as its principal body belongs to the collective ownership of all the members of the association. On the other hand, since the defendant association did not have its articles of association or regulations regarding the management and disposal of collective ownership, the commercial building of this case shall be subject to the resolution of the association members or general meeting, the act of disposal of the property of this case shall be null and void even if it did not have its articles of association or regulations.

According to the facts duly established by the court below and the record, the articles of association of a defendant cooperative shall set the power of representation of the president of the cooperative under Article 19(1). Article 13 of the Act shall apply to the matters approved by the general meeting of partners and the matters to be resolved by the board of directors under Article 22 of the Act shall limit the representative of the president of the defendant cooperative, who is the representative of the defendant cooperative. The fact that the articles of association

If there are these circumstances, the agreement that the non-party, who is the representative of the defendant's association, provides the plaintiff with the instant commercial building belonging to the collective ownership of the defendant's association as security for transfer without the resolution of the general meeting

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the above transfer security agreement is not null and void on the ground that there is a separate agreement on the disposal of property collectively owned by the articles of incorporation of the defendant cooperative, without any evidence, shall be deemed to have affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of the disposal of property collectively owned. The ground of appeal pointing

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the case to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)