[1] Whether the right to claim sale under Article 48 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act can be effective in a rebuilding resolution (affirmative)

[2] In a case where the whole building in a single complex is to be reconstructed en bloc, whether a rebuilding resolution under the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act should be required for each building (affirmative)

[3] In a case where a provision easing a quorum for rebuilding resolution was newly established after the resolution for rebuilding did not meet the quorum under Article 47 (2) of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, whether the invalid rebuilding resolution or the exercise of the right to demand sale based thereon can be retroactively effective (negative)

[1] Since the right to claim sale by a sectional owner, etc. under Article 48 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act arises only when a rebuilding resolution is valid, the right to claim sale shall not be exercised where the rebuilding resolution is null and void for reasons such as failing to meet the quorum under the Act.

[2] A rebuilding resolution under the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act shall be required for each individual building even in a case where the whole building in one complex is to be reconstructed en bloc.

[3] If the rebuilding resolution fails to meet the quorum under Article 47 (2) of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, it cannot be said that there is a valid rebuilding resolution, and even if the rebuilding resolution requires two-thirds or more of the sectional owners and voting rights for each building in the housing complex, and the resolution requires four-fifths or more of the total sectional owners and voting rights within the housing complex, and the rebuilding resolution resolution resolution becomes invalid retroactively due to the establishment of the above Article 47 (2) of the Multi-Unitial Building Act, even if the number of sectional owners and voting rights in each building in the housing complex is alleviated by the Act No. 5908 of February 8, 199.

[1] Articles 47 and 48 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act / [2] Article 47 of the Multi-unit Residential Building Act / [3] Articles 47 and 48 of the Multi-unit Residential Building Act, Article 44-3 (7) of

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Da41868 delivered on March 13, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 102) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Da20608 delivered on October 2, 1998 (Gong2000Sang, 711 delivered on February 11, 2000), Supreme Court Decision 99Du7210 delivered on February 11, 200 (Gong200Sang, 711) (Gong200Sang, 711) and Supreme Court Decision 9Da63084 delivered on June 23, 200 (Gong200Ha, 1741)

Jeon federation Rebuilding Housing Association (Attorney Han-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 10 others (Attorney Kim Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na22122 delivered on March 31, 2000

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below comprehensively based on the evidence adopted in its judgment, 11,081.22 m2, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul and 16 m2 m2, and 143 m2, among the above buildings, were old after 18 years have passed since the construction of the above buildings. In light of the residential environment due to the use of neighboring land, as well as the poor residential environment due to reconstruction, the construction of new apartment on the site is expected to increase the utility compared with the cost of reconstruction, and established a new apartment on September 19, 197 with the approval of the establishment of the housing association on September 19, 197. The plaintiff association, on September 20, 1997, notified the defendants to the effect that the above establishment of the housing association and the sectional owners of the above 169m22 m2, 197 m2, 97 m2, 197 m2, each of the above defendants' right to claim for reconstruction and sale.

2. Since the right to demand sale by sectional owners, etc. under Article 48 of the Act arises only when a resolution for reconstruction is valid, the right to demand sale cannot be exercised in a case where the resolution for reconstruction is null and void for reasons such as failing to meet the quorum prescribed by the Act.

그런데 이 사건 매도청구권 행사 무렵에 요구되던 재건축 결의의 정족수는 '구분소유자 및 의결권의 각 5분의 4 이상의 다수에 의한 결의'였고(법 제47조 제2항), 이러한 정족수에 의한 결의는 하나의 단지 내에 있는 여러 동의 건물 전부를 일괄하여 재건축하고자 하는 경우에도 개개의 각 건물마다 있어야 하는데 (대법원 1998. 3. 13. 선고 97다41868 판결 참조), 원심이 인정한 사실관계에 의하더라도 위 연립주택 중 (주소 2 생략) 지상의 △△☆동 연립주택에 대하여는 총 14세대 중 피고 4, 피고 3, 피고 2, 피고 1 등 4세대(28%)가, (주소 3 생략) 지상의 ○○▽동 연립주택에 대하여는 총 9세대 중 피고 11, 피고 9, 피고 10 등 3세대(1/3)가, (주소 4 생략) 지상의 ○○연립주택 □□동에 대하여는 총 6세대 중 피고 8, 피고 7 등 2세대(1/3)가, (주소 5 생략) 지상의 ○○연립주택 ◇◇동에 대하여는 총 9세대 중 피고 5, 피고 6 등 2세대(23%)가 각 재건축에 찬성하지 아니하여 위 각 동의 연립주택 모두가 법이 정한 재건축 결의의 정족수(4/5)를 충족하지 못하였음을 알아 볼 수 있으므로, 결국 위 각 동의 연립주택에 대하여는 유효한 재건축의 결의가 있다고 할 수 없고, 따라서 그 구분소유자들인 피고들에 대하여는 매도청구권을 행사할 수 없다고 할 것이다. 위 재건축 결의의 정족수는 그 후 '주택단지 안의 각 동별 구분소유자 및 의결권의 각 3분의 2 이상의 결의와 주택단지 안의 전체 구분소유자 및 의결권의 5분의 4 이상의 결의'를 요하는 것으로 완화되기는 하였으나(1999. 2. 8. 법률 제5908호로 신설된 주택건설촉진법 제44조의3 제7항), 위 조항의 신설로 무효이던 종전의 재건축 결의나 그 재건축 결의에 기한 매도청구권의 행사가 소급하여 유효하게 되는 것은 아니라고 할 것이다 .

Thus, although the plaintiff union's exercise of the right to sell this case against the defendants by the lawsuit of this case is illegal, the court below judged this as legitimate for the reasons stated in its holding and accepted all the claims against the defendants of the plaintiff union. The judgment below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the reconstruction of an aggregate building, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The part of the grounds of appeal pointing this out is justified

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)