1. A apartment reconstruction rearrangement project approved by the defendant on May 15, 2018 by the head of Seocho-gu.

Details of the disposition

The defendant is a cooperative established to implement the housing reconstruction improvement project (hereinafter referred to as the "project in this case") in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and seven parcels.

The Plaintiffs are the co-owners of commercial buildings in the instant business zone, and are the Defendant’s members.

On December 22, 2017, the Defendant: (a) held an extraordinary general meeting (hereinafter referred to as “instant extraordinary general meeting”); (b) presented, deliberated, and resolved on, the agenda items referred to in subparagraphs 2 through 9, including the “case of a resolution to amend the articles of association,” the agenda items referred to in subparagraph 2, “case of a resolution to amend the articles of association,” and the case of an application for authorization,” and (c) declared that the agenda items referred to in subparagraph 1 were rejected on the ground that 673 of the members did not obtain the consent of at least 2/3 of the 1,061 members; (d) the agenda items referred to in subparagraph 2 were resolved with the consent of at least 1,061 members, 742, and 3 of the 1,061 members, respectively.

The Defendant formulated a management and disposal plan (hereinafter referred to as the “management and disposal plan of this case”) in accordance with the resolution of the agenda under subparagraph 3 at the special meeting of this case, and applied for authorization of the management and disposal plan of this case to the head of Seocho-gu on December 27, 2017 and obtained the authorization on May 15, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 15, and Eul evidence Nos. 15, and the plaintiffs' procedural defect in the whole purport of the disposition plan of this case's assertion as to the legitimacy of the whole argument of the disposition plan of this case, the defendant presented a management disposition plan proposal of attached Table 2 to 0.2, which is "ratio determined by the general meeting to be multiplied by the minimum estimated size of the unit of sale" (hereinafter "minimum estimated size of the unit of sale") as an item No. 3, on the premise that the agenda of this case was resolved

However, the defendant, after the completion of voting on the agenda items 2 through 9, set forth in subparagraph 1, prior to the ballot counting.