Plaintiff 1 and 12 others (Attorneys O Chang-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 14 and eight others

Defendant Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (Attorney Jin-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

July 12, 2006

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2004Gahap7680 Delivered on September 23, 2005

1. Paragraph (b) and (c) of the Disposition of the first instance judgment shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

2. Of the appeals filed by the plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, the appeal filed against the part of paragraph (b) and (c) of the first instance judgment shall be dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 and the defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed, respectively.

4. The total costs of the lawsuit are ten minutes, which shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder by the defendants.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant confirms that (1) each resolution listed in the separate sheet No. 1 attached hereto, which was made at the general meeting of the union members on November 1, 2003, (2) each resolution listed in the separate sheet No. 2 attached hereto, which was made at the general meeting of union members on May 29, 2004, (3) the allocation of apartment flat and the drawing of Dong and Dong-water, which was made to the Plaintiffs on June 4, 2004, are invalid, respectively.

2. Purport of appeal

A. Plaintiff 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (hereinafter “Plaintiff 1 through 13”) of the judgment of the court of first instance shall revoke the part of the disposition No. 1(b) and (c) of the judgment of the court of first instance and the part against the above plaintiffs. On May 29, 2004, the resolution of the management and disposition plan (a management and disposition plan) made at the general meeting of the members of the association, and on June 4, 2004, it is confirmed that the apartment-type allocation and the drawing of Dong and unit numbers against the plaintiffs are invalid in violation of the principle of equity.

B. Defendant: The part against the Defendant of the first instance judgment is revoked, and the Plaintiffs’ claims corresponding to the revoked part are all dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the following facts: Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4, 16-1, Eul evidence 17-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1 through 27, Eul evidence 3-1 through 3, Eul evidence 4 through 6, Eul evidence 11, 12, Eul evidence 20 through 13-14, and Eul evidence 13-1 through 14.

A. The defendant association obtained the authorization of change from 2,857 members (hereinafter referred to as the "building of this case") among sectional owners of the apartment complex constructed on the ground (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case") 3,280 households (15 square-type 3,00 households, 17 square-type 280 households) in Songpa-gu, Seoul (2, 380 members on July 16, 2003, the number of members of the association was changed to 3,430 members on October 31, 2003, and the number of members of the association was changed to 3,430 members from the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 624, Dec. 16, 2000; Act No. 6565, Feb. 6, 200).

B. In holding an inaugural general meeting on May 29, 199, the Defendant Union submitted the “resolution and project plan” and other written consents regarding the appointment of representatives and articles of association, etc. from sectional owners. The main parts of the above “resolution and project plan” form are as follows.

2. Details of reconstruction projects;

(a) Outline of the new building;

- Site area: 177,145.50 square meters - Scale: 42 - 11 stories from 30 stories to 3864 households;

- Total floor area of a building: 684,210.16 square meters - Other: Ground 152,398 square meters, underground 54,575 square meters;

(b) Estimated amount of the expenses for removal and new construction of buildings;

- Calculation basis: 53,587 square meters 】 Floor area ratio of 285% = Total 206,973 square meters (including subsidiary facilities);

- Costs of removal and construction: 462,065 million won (2,232,493 Won/pact) 】 206,973 square meters

- Other costs: 75,819 million won (36,325 won/pact) x 206,973 square meters

- Total costs: 537,884 million won (2,598,818 won/pact) x 206,973 square meters

C. Burden of expenses under “B”

-construction costs of a newly constructed building shall be allocated for the sale (sale) of surplus buildings, and the shortage shall be fairly borne by the members of the association in accordance with the size of their occupancy.

(d) Reversion of sectional ownership of the newly constructed building;

-Sectional ownership of a newly constructed building shall be allocated to maintain equity in proportion to the shares in the existing site, and ownership of the land shall be registered in accordance with the allocation type after completion of the project, and the ownership of the building shall be preserved and registered for each member.

C. At the inaugural general meeting of the defendant's association held on May 29, 199, approximately 66.2% of the sectional owners 3,288 of the apartment complex of this case (including 1,318 members at the general meeting + 997 members who submitted the above written resolution + 139 members who attended the general meeting after submitting the written resolution) and the resolution for reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as "re-resolution resolution of May 29, 199"), ② approval of the articles of association of the association, ③ approval of the articles of association of the association, ④ approval of the draft business plan, ④ approval of the proposed business plan, ⑤ the selection of the Si public corporation, ⑤ the main contents of the "data of the inaugural general meeting meeting" distributed to the members prior to such resolution are as follows:

(i) Examining feasibility (a) (a study on the level of each member's burden on architecture and real estate games);

1. Terms and conditions on feasibility review;

- Business feasibility review is very difficult and early, and it is possible to determine ① floor area ratio (construction cost), ② business cost (construction cost), ③ selling price (income from disposing of surplus buildings), etc.

- Since one of the above matters is not finally determined, the review on feasibility presented below is one household and is winding to refer to the table below under the premise that it is desired.

2. Calculation details;

2.3 million won or less for sale in lots, 2.57 million won or more + 2.57 million won or more + 2.57 million won or more + 2.57 million won or more + 2.57 million won or more + 2.57 million won or less (1.577 million won or less), 2.57 million won or more + 2.57 million won or more; 2.5761 million won or more; 2.5765 million won or more; 2.5765 million won or less; 2.57865 million won or more; 2.57865 million won or more; 2.5765 million won or more; 2.5765 million won or more; 2.57 million won or more; 2.57 million won or less; 2.5765 million won or more; 2.57 million won or more; 2.5 million won or more;

* It is corrected that part of the content of the above Schedule has been mistakenly calculated.

(2) Proposed proposal

(A) Bill 1: A rebuilding resolution

(b) Bills 4: Draft project plan

2. Outline of construction (this outline of construction has possibility to be altered);

본문내 포함된 표 위치 서울 송파구 (동. 지번 생략) 지역·지구 일반주거지역, 2종미관지구, 아파트지구 대지현황 아파트 : 168,720.50㎡ (51,037평) 용적률 284.40% 공 원 : 6,106.10㎡ (1,847평) 건폐율 12.83% 상 가 : 2,318.40㎡ (701평) 지상면적 503,796.97㎡ (152,398평) 계획대지면적 177,145.50㎡ (53,587평) 지하면적 180,413.19㎡ (54,575평) 사업규모 아파트 42개동 3,864세대 연면적 684,210.16㎡ (206,973평) - 32평형 : 20개동 2,010세대 - 42평형 : 14개동 1,250세대 건축면적 22,722.73㎡ (6,874평) - 54평형 : 8개동 604세대 녹지율 68% 기타복리시설 주차대수 5,900대 (지상 250대, 지하 5,650대) - 관리, 노인정 1동 - 유치원 1동 층수 11층 ~ 30층 - 생활편의시설 1동 도로율 ？

3. Resolution content: A decision on the project plan pursuant to Article 44 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act and Article 42 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be made as above.

(C) Bill 5: Selection of a project for participation

Comparing the amount proposed by the Participating Bureau

2,232,493 won/p. 2,232,493 won/p. 2,232,493 won/p. 2,32,493 won/p. 2,354,62 won/p. 1,370,00 won/p. 122,171 won/p. 145,316,292 won/p. 284,000 won-p. 2,354,62 won-p. 1,370 won-p. 122,171 won-p. 304,316,292,00 won-p. 284,280 won-p. 2808 won-p.

D. The main contents of the part relating to this case in the articles of incorporation of the defendant association which was resolved at its inaugural general meeting on May 29, 1999 are as follows:

Article 5 (Method of Enforcement)

(1) A housing developer under the Housing Construction Promotion Act shall build appurtenant and welfare facilities, such as apartment houses and commercial buildings, by investing in kind land owned by a member within the project implementation zone, and by designating a housing developer under the Housing Construction Promotion Act as a contractor.

(2) The association or contractor shall procure construction expenses, incidental expenses, etc. necessary for implementing the projects pursuant to a separate agreement.

Article 9 (Rights and Obligations of Members)

(1) Members shall have the following rights and duties:

1. Right to request sale of buildings, etc. prescribed by a management and disposal plan;

5. Responsibility for the payment of dues and liquidation money;

Article 18 (Resolutions by General Meeting) The following matters shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting:

1. Amendment of the articles of incorporation;

2. Matters concerning the decision and change of the project execution plan;

3. Formulation and amendment of a management and disposal plan;

Article 19 (Resolution Method of General Meeting)

(1) A general meeting shall be held by attendance of a majority of members, and pass a resolution with the consent of a majority of members present, and the chairperson shall exercise his

§ 29 (Financial Resources) Funds to operate unions and to implement projects shall be raised as follows:

1. Land invested by partners;

2. Dues and charges paid by members;

3. Revenues from the sale of buildings and appurtenant and welfare facilities;

7. Other profits from using and earning profits from the properties of the association.

Article 30 (Imposition and Collection of Expenses)

(1) A cooperative may impose and collect expenses from its members to appropriate them for expenses incurred in implementing its projects.

(2) The expenses under the preceding paragraph shall be imposed fairly in consideration of the area and conditions of use.

Article 39 (Standards for Management and Disposal Plans) A management and disposal plan for the property owned by partners shall be formulated in accordance with the following guidelines:

(1) In principle, housing units to be newly built on the basis of the previous housing area in which members invested shall be sold in lots, but one house shall be supplied to one member in principle: Provided, That the amendment of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be followed, and housing units owned by a corporation may be supplied in proportion to the number of previous housing units.

(2) The area of housing, etc. sold in lots after the implementation of a project shall be based on the area of sale in lots (exclusively owned area + jointly owned area), and land shall be sold in lots in proportion to the area of housing, etc.

(3) The scale of housing to be sold by members shall be prepared by drawing up a construction plan and determined by deliberation after obtaining approval for a project plan.

(4) A newly-built house's allocation by grade (Dong, floor, unit) shall be made public by lot: Provided, That where a newly-built house wishes to purchase the relevant grade or lower, it may comply therewith.

(5) Where there is a difference between the area of housing, etc. subject to parcelling-out calculated based on the previous housing area invested by members and the scale of housing units sold by members after the implementation of the project, an amount computed on the basis of the price per unit area computed for general parcelling-out shall be paid by the association

(6) The remaining housing remaining after supplying to members shall be appropriated for project costs by selling it in lots to the general public, and the regulations on housing supply shall apply to the timing, procedures, methods, etc. for the supply of the remaining housing.

(8) Incidental and welfare facilities, such as commercial buildings, constructed within a project implementation zone, shall be preferentially sold to owners who are identical or similar to the uses of the previous building, and remaining facilities shall be sold in general. In such cases, the sale price shall be the arithmetic mean of the appraised values of at least two certified appraisal corporations, and the sale price in general shall be sale in the order of application

E. Meanwhile, the defendant union newly received the documents such as the "resolution for reconstruction and the written consent for the project plan" from the sectional owners of the apartment complex in this case who did not attend the inaugural general meeting, and obtained the consent of the sectional owners of 83.7% at the time of obtaining the approval for the establishment of the housing association from the head of Songpa-gu on December 16, 200, and obtained the consent of all sectional owners, including the plaintiffs, by October 31, 2003.

F. On November 29, 2002, the Defendant Union obtained the approval of the project plan for the reconstruction of this case from the head of Songpa-gu, and received from January 2003, the registration of ownership transfer based on trust for the old buildings owned by the members including the Plaintiffs, and transferred the members.

G. Meanwhile, on October 15, 2003, the Defendant Cooperative convened a general meeting of its members by setting the date and time as of November 1, 2003 and the place as of November 11, 2003, Songpa-gu Seoul ○○○○ Dong branch. Nonparty 1, etc., opposing the executive branch of the Defendant Cooperative, filed an application against the Defendant Cooperative for the provisional injunction to hold an extraordinary general meeting convened by Nonparty 2 as of Seoul East Eastern District Court 2003Kahap2262, and received a decision to accept it from the above court on October 31, 2003. Notwithstanding the above provisional injunction decision, the Defendant Cooperative held an extraordinary general meeting of its members (hereinafter “general meeting on November 1, 2003”) on November 1, 2003, and resolved on each agenda listed in the separate list 1.

H. After that, the general meeting of Nonparty 1, etc. was held in violation of the decision on the provisional measure against prohibition of holding of the general meeting on November 1, 2003, and the issue was raised on the ground of invalidation. Accordingly, the Defendant Union held the special meeting of the union members on May 29, 2004 (hereinafter “general meeting on May 29, 2004”) to re-resolution the agenda item of the general meeting on November 1, 2003, and passed a resolution on May 29, 2004 (hereinafter “the general meeting”) to confirm the progress: (i) the case of ratification of the amendment of the articles of association; (ii) the case of the construction contract and the management and disposition plan; (iii) the case of other agenda (the case of implementing the conditions for approval of the business plan; (iv) the case of adopting the local heating; and (v) the case of delegation of minor matters), with the consent of 3, 196 present members, 198 persons, 1588, and 74 articles of association.

I. The major contents of the resolution on the management and disposition plan (hereinafter “the resolution on the management and disposition plan of this case”) at the general meeting of May 29, 2004 are as follows.

Article 4 (Standards for Previous Assets)

The standards for the previous assets of 15 square-type 3,00 households and 17 square-type 280 households and distributed shopping-type 280 households in a project implementation district shall be calculated by calculating the arithmetic mean of the amounts appraised by two certified appraisal institutions under Article 39(8) and (9) of the Articles of Incorporation of the Union and Article 19 of the Public Notice of Values

The arithmetic mean mean of appraisal corporations

1,179,861,440,00 won 1,142,586,556,00 won, 161,23,98,00 won, which is the numerical mean of the average of the appraisal corporations of the same day as the appraisal corporations included in the main sentence.

Article 5 (Calculation of Value of Rights)

The following formula shall apply to the calculation of the value of rights by persons eligible for parcelling-out, which are the standards for parcelling-out of sites and construction facilities:

(a) The value of rights of members shall be calculated by multiplying the average value of previous assets by the proportional ratio that reflects the development gains accrued from a reconstruction project;

* Amount of right = Assets of previous association members (amount obtained by averaging the values of land and buildings) ¡¿ proportional ratio;

* Ratio = Ratio = Ratio of allocating pure development gains generated from a reconstruction project to partners in a balanced manner.

The proportional rate = (the total estimated total income after the completion of the project - the total project cost) / (previous assets) x 100

(b) Details of calculation of proportional rates;

proportional rate of 126.60% = (2,052,158,98,00 won - 581,998,595,00 won) / 1,161,223,98,000 won x 100

(c) Determination of the amount of rights;

The proportional rate shall be applied on the basis of the arithmetic average of the previous appraisal values by the appraisal corporation of the same day.

※ 15평형 산술평균금액 343,186,500원 × 126.60% ≒ 권리가액 434,470,000원

※ 17평형 산술평균금액 443,003,200원 × 126.60% ≒ 권리가액 560,840,000원

Article 6 (Sale of Buildings in Lots)

(b) Sale price;

(1) Members: It shall be the amount calculated by taking an arithmetic mean of the appraised values received by requesting an appraisal corporation based on the provisions of Articles 48 and 57 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents

(2) General sale: An association which is an implementer shall be separately determined in consideration of the market prices in neighboring areas.

Article 7 (Standards for Sale of Building Facilities)

(a) Multi-family housing sold in lots to members shall be governed by the following criteria:

(1) In principle, housing units to be newly built according to the desired application for parcelling-out shall be sold to the association members, and one house shall be supplied to one association member: Provided, That rental housing units of a rental business operator under the Rental Housing Act, official residence owned by the State or a local government, and an employee accommodation owned by a corporation may be supplied as much as the number of previous houses.

(b) Criteria for the allocation of flats, Dongs and headings;

(1) The allocation of a flat punishment shall take precedence over the application for parcelling-out.

(2) Where competition occurs according to desired deliberation, the punishment shall be determined first in the order of maximum amount of entitlement.

(3) A cooperative member who wishes to have one floor by the grade of each sale in lots shall be preferentially allocated, and if there is any competition, it shall be determined by lot: Provided, That the principle of subparagraph B shall be applied preferentially.

(4) A member who has fallen from a decision on the sale of buildings in units may participate in the allocation of two networks, but shall be allocated in accordance with the following criteria: Provided, That the principle of paragraphs (1), (2), (3) shall be applied preferentially:

* 17 square members

Where an association member who has filed an application for parcelling-out with 54 square meter-type 54 square meter-type 54 square meter-type 54 square meter-type 54 square meter-type 54 square meter-type 54 square meter-type 54 square meter-type 43 square meter-type 43 square meter-type 43 square meter-type 43 square meter-type 43 square meter-type, and in principle, 33 square meter-type 25 square meter-type 25 square meter-type 33 square meter-type 1 square meter-type 43 square meter-type 1 square meter-type 43 square meter-type 25 square meter-type 1 square meter-type 25 square meter-type 25 square meter-type 25 square meter-type 25 square meter-type.

* 15 square members

Where an association member who has applied for parcelling-out with 54 square meters at the time of application for parcelling-out included in the main sentence, exceeds the unit unit unit, he/she shall draw lots, and shall not participate in the allotment even if he/she has applied for 43 square meters or 33 square meters at the two network, and he/she shall be allocated to 25 square meters (Provided, That where the unit unit of 43 square meters or 33 square meters is less than the unit unit unit, he/she may first assign one unit unit of 43 square meters to one unit unit of 43 square, and where an association member who has applied for parcelling-out with 43 square meters at the time of application for parcelling-out is more than the unit unit, he/she shall be entitled to participate in the allotment of the remaining unit of 4 square meters at the time of application for parcelling-out or 44 square meters at the time of application for parcelling-out, and where an association member who has applied for parcelling-out with 24 square meters or 333 square meters at the time of 25 square unit.

Article 9 [Standards for Sale of Physical Reserve Facilities (SPS)]

(b)The sale of a commercial partner shall be carried out in such a manner as determined by the agreement among the following members:

(i) No. 1 proposal

In addition to the shares of the members of the previous commercial building, the method of independent settlement to be sold to the members of the commercial building at the price calculated by taking an arithmetic mean of the appraised values of at least two appraisal institutions of the apartment site

Sheb proposal 2

The method of calculating the free share ratio of members of a commercial building and operating the business.

(c) Where a member of the association wishes to sell an apartment house, the remaining site except for the site corresponding to the apartment shall be settled in cash or supplied with a commercial building at the wishes of the member of the association (where the unit sale of a commercial building is intended, a separate consultation shall be held);

Article 10 (Liquidation)

(j) Other: 20,00,000 won shall be added and distributed equally to the refund money of the members of the 25th ordinary allocation system where the members of the 15th ordinary association have been allocated to more than the scale of national housing (43 square meters and 53 square meters) by a consultation and resolution at the general meeting.

(j) On June 4, 2004, on the basis of the instant management and disposition plan resolution, the Defendant Mutual Aid Association (hereinafter referred to as the “instant drawing”) conducted a flat-type and unit drawing (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) against its members, including the Plaintiffs. On January 2, 2004, the Defendant Mutual Aid Association commenced the removal of the instant apartment on March 31, 2004 and started the new construction of the building.

2. Whether an appeal filed against the resolution, etc. on the management and disposal plan of this case among the appeals filed by Plaintiffs 1 through 13 is lawful

As part of the instant claim, the Plaintiffs sought confirmation of invalidity of the instant management and disposal plan’s resolution and the instant drawing on the ground that the contents of the instant resolution and the drawing are inconsistent with the principle of equity, and the court of first instance affirmed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the contents of the said resolution and drawing are not contrary to the principle of equity (Article 1-b(c) of the judgment of the court of first instance). As to this, Plaintiff 1 through 13 raised an appeal against the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which determined that the above resolution and the contents of drawing are not contrary to the equity, among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, and sought confirmation of invalidity against the principle of equity. However, despite the acceptance of the above Plaintiffs’ claim on the instant management and disposal plan in the main sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is unlawful to deem that there is no interest in the appeal of this part of the said judgment to seek revocation of the said judgment on the ground that there is no benefit in the appeal.

3. Determination as to the claim for nullification of the resolution of the Assembly on November 1, 2003

The plaintiffs asserted that each resolution listed in the separate list No. 1, which was held at the meeting of November 1, 2003, was null and void because it violated the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2003Kahap2262, and therefore, it is reasonable to see that the provisional disposition which prohibits the opening of the general meeting is null and void, since the court made a provisional disposition which prohibits the holding of the general meeting, it is reasonable to see that the provisional general meeting resolution which was held in violation of this order is null and void. However, according to the above facts, the non-party 1 et al. against the above court against the defendant association by applying for the provisional disposition prohibiting the holding of the general meeting, which was convened by the non-party 2, who is the president of the defendant association, on October 31, 2003. Nevertheless, the defendant association held a general meeting on November 1, 2003, and made each resolution listed in the separate list No. 1, which was held in violation of the above separate list No. 1, and thus held the general meeting.

4. Determination of the management and disposal plan resolution of this case and the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the drawing of this case

The plaintiffs asserted that the resolution of the management and disposal plan of this case made by the Defendant Union at the Assembly on May 29, 2004 was null and void, and seek confirmation of the invalidity of the resolution of the management and disposal plan of this case and the drawing of this case implemented in accordance with the resolution against the Defendant Union. The plaintiffs will take account of the following in turn.

A. As to the assertion that the special quorum provisions were violated

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The rebuilding resolution is required to be determined as one of the essential and important matters in the rebuilding resolution under Article 47 (3) of the Multi-Unit Building Act (hereinafter referred to as the "multi-unit Building Act"), "a summary of the design of a new building", "a matter concerning the removal of a building and the allocation of expenses incurred in constructing a new building", and "a matter concerning the allotment of sectional ownership of a new building", and "a matter concerning the allotment of sectional ownership of a new building". If a rebuilding resolution is not determined in the rebuilding resolution but is adopted at a general meeting and at the meeting of the association members, it is necessary to make a resolution by majority of 4/5 or more of the union members by applying the special multiple quorum at the time of rebuilding resolution mutatis mutandis. However, the rebuilding resolution of May 29, 199 did not stipulate matters concerning the summary of the design of the new building, the apportionment of expenses, and the apportionment of sectional ownership of a new building. Thus, the resolution of the Defendant Union's management and disposal plan at issue meets the above matters that were not determined in the rebuilding resolution on May 29, 19, and its invalidity.

(2) Determination

(A) According to Article 47 (2) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, a resolution for rebuilding shall be adopted by a majority of 4/5 or more of sectional owners and voting rights. According to Article 47 (3) and (4) of the same Act, when a resolution for rebuilding is adopted, matters concerning the removal of the building and the apportionment of expenses incurred in the construction of the new building and matters concerning the ownership of sectional ownership of the new building shall be determined to maintain equity among sectional owners. The above matters concerning the apportionment of rebuilding expenses shall be determined to maintain equity among sectional owners. Since the matters concerning the apportionment of rebuilding expenses shall be the basis for allowing sectional owners to bear reasonable expenses, whether they will participate in rebuilding, sell sectional ownership, etc. at the market price, and choose not to participate in rebuilding expenses, it shall not be omitted. If a resolution is adopted at the general meeting of the association members without determining matters concerning the apportionment of rebuilding expenses at the time of the resolution for rebuilding, it shall be interpreted that a resolution by majority of 4/5 or more of the sectional owners at the time of the resolution for rebuilding is necessary to guarantee equity among the conflicting members (see, etc.).

However, as the reconstruction of apartment is not limited to an individual Dong but a project consisting of several sectional owners in a group of complexes, it is difficult to unify their opinions by crossing various interests in the process of the reconstruction, and it is difficult for sectional owners who participate in or withdraw from the reconstruction in the process of the reconstruction to prepare a specific and conclusive implementation plan at the early stage of the reconstruction promotion because external conditions are changed due to the revision of laws and regulations, changes in the housing market, etc. It is difficult to request the reconstruction promotion committee to prepare a specific and conclusive implementation plan. It is a common example to reveal the specific form only after the construction design or project plan, etc. is completed when the construction plan, etc. is completed at the early stage of the approval of the project plan, through the process of the reconstruction promotion committee's activities, the reconstruction association's establishment, and the consultation with the project related persons. Therefore, the resolution on the resolution as stipulated in Article 47 (3) of the Multi-Family Building Act should be determined by comprehensively examining not only at the time of the inaugural general meeting of the reconstruction association but also before and after the resolution.

(B) Health expenses for this case, ① the defendant association shall be deemed to have established a separate plan for reconstruction and business plan submitted by the sectional owners before and after the resolution of May 29, 199, regarding the size of the building site, total floor area of the building, and KRW 537,84,00 for the reconstruction of this case, and the cost of construction of new building shall be appropriated for the proceeds of sale of surplus building, and the ownership of the new building shall be apportioned fairly according to the unit area ratio of the building site; ② the ownership of the land shall be registered in proportion to the unit area of the new building; ② the size of the new building site and the size of the new building to be sold to the association members after the resolution of May 29, 199; ② the size of the new building site and the size of the new building site to be sold to the association members after the resolution of May 29, 199; ② the size of the new building site and the size of the new building site to be sold to the association members according to the previous approval plan shall be included.

Therefore, at the time of the rebuilding resolution of May 29, 199, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit under the premise that the matters stipulated in Article 47 (3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act were not prescribed at the time of the rebuilding resolution of May 29.

B. As to the assertion that the principle of equity was violated

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) In the management and disposal plan of this case, the right to 15 square meters to 4,470,00 won (hereinafter referred to as "17 square meters-type cooperative"), which is substantially equal to 17,840,00 won (hereinafter referred to as "17-type cooperative members"), shall be calculated based on the 17-type cooperative's respective right to 4,70,00 won, and the 17-type cooperative's existing shares shall be determined by the 17-type cooperative's average right to 4,74,00 square meters-type cooperative's respective right to 17-type cooperative's respective right to 4,74,00 square meters-type cooperative's respective right to 17,43,00 square meters-type cooperative's respective right to 47,000 square meters-type cooperative's respective right to 17,000 square meters-type cooperative's respective right to 47,000 square meters-type cooperative's average right to 33334,04,04,00 square meters.

(2) Determination

(A) In rebuilding, matters concerning apportionment of expenses and attribution of sectional ownership should be decided by the members of the association. However, unless there are special circumstances, the internal regulations of the association such as the articles of association or resolution of a juristic person or the defendant association which has no capacity such as the association of the juristic person and the defendant association shall be valid unless they violate compulsory regulations or are considerably unreasonable in light of social norms to the extent that they violate good morals and other social order (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Da29026 delivered on November 24, 1992, Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da78980 delivered on April 26, 2002, etc.). However, in determining matters concerning apportionment of expenses and reversion of sectional ownership, the rebuilding association shall not be bound to invalidate its resolution on the grounds of minor equality by applying the principle of formal equity in terms of the conditions of execution of rebuilding-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction, technical limitations and limit, and allocation of expenses to the members of the association, and it shall be clearly acknowledged that it is invalid due to the majority members' disadvantage.

(6) In light of the above facts, it is difficult to recognize the difference between the size of each apartment unit and the size of each apartment unit to be purchased in proportion to the size of each apartment unit and the size of each apartment unit to be purchased in proportion to the size of each unit, and it is difficult to recognize the difference between the size of each unit and the size of each unit and the size of each unit to be purchased in proportion to the size of each unit and the size of each unit and the size of each unit to be purchased in proportion to the size of each unit and the size of each unit and the size of each unit to be purchased in proportion to the size of each unit and the size of each unit and the size of each unit to be purchased in proportion to the size of each unit and the size of each unit and the size of each unit.

In addition, Article 9 of the Management and Disposal Plan provides that commercial partners shall choose the sale standards for the commercial welfare facilities from among the methods of independent settlement of accounts and share. However, even if following the above independent settlement system and share system, the remaining commercial buildings except the sale of the facilities to the association members are implemented. Thus, the above plan does not violate Article 39 subparagraph 8 of the articles of association of the defendant association.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

C. As to the assertion that a written resolution is invalid

The plaintiffs have a number of written resolution in relation to the resolution of the management and disposition plan of this case, which is forged and sealed by forging and sealing the seals of the union members without the consent of the union members. ② Despite the existence of a considerable number of union members present at the general meeting of May 29, 2004 among the union members who submitted the written resolution, the majority was calculated in calculating the quorum and the quorum. ③ In cases where the seal imprint and the seal imprint are different, there are cases where the name of the person who is the written resolution on May 29, 2004 and the name of the person who actually submitted the written resolution are different from the name of the person who is the written resolution and the name of the person who is actually submitted the written resolution are not affixed to the list of the general meeting of May 29, 2004.

5. On May 29, 2004, the determination on the claim for invalidity confirmation of the remaining resolution excluding the instant management and disposal plan resolution among the resolution passed at the general meeting of the shareholders on May 29

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserts that the remaining resolution except the resolution of the management and disposal plan of this case (hereinafter "other resolution of this case, etc.") is null and void for the following reasons among the resolutions listed in the separate list No. 2 attached to May 29, 2004, which were resolved by the general meeting resolution of this case (hereinafter "the resolution of this case"). In other words, ① there are many written resolution submitted from members by forging and sealing seals of the members without the consent of the members, ② despite the majority of the members who attended the general meeting of May 29, 2004, the number of the members who submitted the written resolution were calculated in calculating the quorum and the quorum. ③ If the seal imprint affixed to the written resolution of this case and the seal imprint affixed to the written resolution of this case are different, the name of the person who attended the general meeting list of this case and the name of the person who actually submitted the written resolution of this case are not different from the name of the person who attended the meeting of this case and the method of excluding the resolution of this case from the resolution of the general meeting without the consent of the members.

B. Determination

First, in relation to ①, ②, and ③ claims, the above arguments are without merit for the same reasons as those determined in the above 4.C.

Next, according to the reasoning of the argument, the written resolution on the agenda of the general meeting held on May 29, 2004, which contains only the title of the agenda in the item column of the agenda, can be acknowledged as having been stated in the health class, Eul evidence 1-1 through 216, and Eul evidence 2-18. However, such facts alone cannot be viewed as null and void. Rather, in full view of the overall purport of arguments in the evidence No. 2, the defendant union may recognize the fact that it distributed in advance data containing specific contents of the agenda to be deliberated at the general meeting at the meeting held on May 29, 2004. In light of these facts, it is reasonable that the members who submitted the written resolution have sufficiently been aware of the contents of the agenda that had already been subject to the resolution prior to the preparation and submission of the written resolution. Accordingly, the above argument is without merit.

(5) Next, Article 7 (1) of the Addenda to the Do Government Act provides that "The previous provisions shall govern the implementation of the project plan or the authorization to implement the project under the previous Acts." The Do Government Act was enforced from July 1, 2003. The fact that the defendant union obtained the approval of the project plan for the reconstruction of this case from the head of Songpa-gu on November 29, 2002 is the same as seen earlier. Thus, even if the written resolution on the other resolution of this case includes the agenda for the amendment of the articles of association, the Do Government Act cannot be applied to the said written resolution. Thus, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

Finally, according to the statement of evidence No. 15 as to the assertion, it is recognized that the general meeting of May 29, 2004, on the amendment of the union rules due to the establishment or amendment of the law, or the change of business conditions (Provided, That the rights and obligations of union members are not significantly accompanied), on the amendment of the management and disposal plan with which union members' obligations or charges are not significantly accompanied, on the amendment of the management and disposal plan with which union members' obligations or charges are not significantly accompanied, on other matters necessary for the promotion of the project, or on the modification of the project plan with minor matters, etc. to the board of representatives, it cannot be said that the Do Government Act applies to this case. Furthermore, in this case, the matters delegated to the board of representatives as above are delegated to the extent that the rights and obligations of union members are not significantly changed for the efficient promotion of the reconstruction project, and thus, the plaintiffs' assertion that the delegation resolution of minor matters is null and void is without merit.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as without merit. Since the part against the defendant which differs from some of the judgments of the court of first instance is unfair, it is revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part are dismissed. Among the appeals of the plaintiffs 1 through 13, the appeal against the part of the management and disposition plan of this case against the plaintiffs 1 through 13 is dismissed as unlawful, and the remaining appeals of the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)