1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1. Determination of the original judgment

A. On October 17, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed an administrative litigation against the Defendant against the Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap34648, which confirmed that the disposition to establish an association against the Intervenor Union was invalid on June 12, 2003, and the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit on May 3, 2013.

B. The Plaintiffs appealed to this Court No. 2013Nu14186, and this Court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiffs’ appeal on November 8, 2013.

C. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the judgment subject to a retrial and appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2013Du25764. On July 7, 2016, the final appeal was dismissed, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as it is.

2. The plaintiffs asserted that they agree to the rebuilding resolution of the intervenor association.

Therefore, the first reconstruction resolution of the Intervenor Union on May 24, 2003 is null and void since it did not meet the quorum by at least 4/5 of the total (multi-family and commercial buildings) and at least 2/3 of the building's statutory consent rates. Thus, the first reconstruction resolution of the Intervenor Union on May 24, 2003 is null and void.

Although there is a benefit of legal action seeking confirmation of nullity, the decision subject to a retrial dismissed the appeal.

Ultimately, an original judgment constitutes a case where a document or any other article used as evidence for a judgment under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act is forged or altered, and a judgment is omitted regarding a material fact that may affect the judgment under subparagraph 9.

In addition, the judgment subject to a retrial is against a final judgment rendered prior to a new trial under Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to an administrative litigation pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, provides that “when the documents and other articles used as evidence of the judgment have been forged or altered,” is a ground for retrial, and the Civil Procedure Act.