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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where a housing redevelopment project association established as a juristic person with the approval of the establishment of an association by opening a general meeting of the association and approves or ratified a resolution of the selection of a contractor at the general meeting of residents or the general meeting of owners such as land, etc. held by the general meeting of residents or the general meeting of owners held by the promotion committee (hereinafter referred to as “promotion committee”), even if the resolution of selection of a contractor is null and void, barring special circumstances, such as where a new resolution of the general meeting of residents or the general meeting of landowners held by the promotion committee is deemed null and void due to defects or where a resolution is revoked, seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of selection of a contractor at the general meeting of residents or the general

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da10986 Decided April 12, 2012, etc.). Furthermore, such a legal doctrine ought to be equally applied to a case where a housing redevelopment project association, which holds a general meeting of association and holds a promotion committee, has adopted a resolution that selects a specialized manager of a rearrangement project and a designer as stipulated in Articles 14(1)2 and 2-2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, in a general meeting of residents held by the promotion

On the other hand, in principle, the court's discretion whether to accept an application for resumption of oral argument when the parties filed an application for resumption of oral argument to submit evidence after the closing of oral argument.

However, the party who filed an application for resumption of pleading was unable to have the opportunity to submit the argument due to the circumstances for which it is difficult to impose responsibility on him before the closing of argument, and the subject matter of proof of the argument constitutes an authorized fact that can depend on the outcome of the judgment, such as the party concerned.