The validity of a rebuilding resolution which does not specify matters concerning the apportionment of rebuilding costs (= null and void) and the method of determining matters concerning the apportionment of rebuilding costs.

Article 47 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings

Supreme Court Decision 98Da15996 Decided June 26, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 1998) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da7002 Decided April 29, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 807) Supreme Court Decision 2005Da21036 Decided July 8, 2005 (Gong2004Da7408 Decided July 4, 2006)

A sericultural Note 3 Complex Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (Attorney Jin-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Samsan and two others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na14719 decided September 1, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Appointed Party).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 47(3) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”) provides that the matters concerning the apportionment of expenses incurred in the removal of a building and construction of a new building and the matters concerning the ownership of sectional ownership of a new building shall be determined. The matters concerning the apportionment of expenses for the reconstruction are the basis for allowing sectional owners to participate in the reconstruction while paying a considerable amount of expenses, or to choose whether to sell sectional ownership, etc. and not to participate in the reconstruction according to the market price and not to participate in the reconstruction. The most important and essential part of the contents of the rebuilding resolution is the contents of the rebuilding resolution, which shall be determined to the extent that the agreement on the apportionment of expenses is not reached at the stage of the rebuilding execution, and the unspecified rebuilding resolution shall be null and void unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da7002, Apr. 29, 2005).

According to the records, even if the Defendants were to participate in the rebuilding project on May 29, 199, the number of units of the building and the conclusion of the construction contract for the Plaintiff’s members, the Defendant (appointed parties) and the designated parties (hereinafter “Defendants”) who are the sectional owners at the time of the establishment of the association on December 16, 200, the effective rebuilding resolution was adopted by the majority corresponding to 4/5 or more of the total sectional owners and voting rights regarding the size of the building at the time of the establishment of the association. The consent of this case submitted by the Defendants while participating in the rebuilding is 2,313 square meters (70 square meters), five stories above the ground, 2,870 square meters (the total floor area of the building is 1,750 square meters, underground1,120 square meters), 200 square meters (the total floor area is 701 square meters x 250 square meters, 280 square meters, 270/360 square meters, and 274 square meters).

In the same purport, the decision of the court below is justified in rejecting the defendants' assertion that the plaintiff union did not specify the cost sharing under Article 47 (3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act in the rebuilding resolution, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the effect of rebuilding resolution as

Other grounds of appeal are all asserted after the expiration of the submission period and cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)