1. The judgment of the first instance, including the conjunctive claim that the Plaintiff added to Defendant C at the appellate court.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 13, 2002, the sectional owners of the Plaintiff’s establishment and the first reconstruction resolution of Songpa-gu Seoul E-gi, 392,652 square meters, F. 5,355.3 square meters A1 and the second apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) constituted the “A apartment confirmation shares promotion committee” (hereinafter “instant promotion committee”).

On May 24, 2003, the instant promotion committee held an inaugural general meeting of a reconstruction association and submitted a written resolution in lieu of the attendance by 4,280 among the 6,802 sectional owners of the instant apartment building or by 4,280 persons from among the 6,802 sectional owners of the instant apartment, which passed a rebuilding resolution (hereinafter “the first reconstruction resolution”), approval of the regulations of the association, a resolution on the method of business, a resolution on the appointment of the president of the association, and

After all, some sectional owners submitted an additional consent to the first reconstruction resolution and other resolution. On June 15, 2003, the Plaintiff was established as a sectional owner consisting of 5,786 members, including the sectional owners who agreed to the rebuilding resolution at the first general meeting. On June 12, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment on July 15, 2003 with the approval of establishment with the representative G from the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the association of which was 5,786 members among the sectional owners of the apartment of this case.

B. On March 11, 2004, the Seoul Eastern District Court (2003Gahap5618) rendered a judgment that "the first reconstruction resolution is null and void because specific criteria for the apportionment of rebuilding costs are not presented." The plaintiff divided the written consent specifying the apportionment of expenses to the sectional owners, and made a new rebuilding resolution by holding an ordinary general meeting on June 26, 2004 (hereinafter "the second reconstruction resolution").

After that, in the appellate court of the above judgment, the lawsuit on the claim for nullification of the first reconstruction resolution was withdrawn.

(c)in the rules of association;