[1] The relation to the ownership of an apartment constructed and sold to the general public (=collective ownership by all members of the association) and the method of management and disposal thereof

[2] In a case where Gap corporation, which was entrusted by Gap association, with the authority to conclude a sales contract for apartments newly built by Gap association, concluded a sales contract for unsold apartments that were unsold in lots due to the withdrawal of association members to Byung et al. without going through a resolution of a general meeting of association members, the case affirming the judgment below holding that Gap association's sales contract valid on the ground that it delegated the management committee of Gap association and Eul company with the authority to dispose of the apartment

[1] Articles 275 and 276 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 275 and 276 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da52214 decided Dec. 13, 2007 (Gong2008Sang, 3)

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Law Firm Oyn, Attorneys Final Amb and 8 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Scattering East Forest Housing Association (Law Firm Democratic Law, Attorneys Yoon Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na118725 decided July 14, 2010

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. On the first ground for appeal

The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, and determined to the effect that: (a) the Plaintiffs concluded each of the instant sales contracts where the members of the Defendant Union voluntarily sold unsold housings generated from the withdrawal of the association with the new main company (hereinafter “new main company”) which was delegated with the authority to conclude the sales contract by the Defendant Union; and (b) it is difficult to view the Plaintiffs to have concluded each of the instant sales contracts with the new members of the Defendant Union by succeeding the status of the members who withdrawn from the association.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no violation of the legal principles or rules of logic and experience, and there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. On the second ground for appeal

A building newly built and completed by a housing association as its principal and which belongs to the general public other than its members belongs to the collective ownership of all its members, and if the articles of association or regulations of the housing association stipulate the management and disposition of collective property, it shall comply with such provisions, and if there is no articles of association or regulations, a resolution of the general meeting of its members shall be adopted, and such act without going through such procedures shall be null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5214, Dec. 13, 2007, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after compiling the adopted evidence, and determined that each of the sales contracts of this case was valid even if the defendant union and the new representative of the defendant union concluded each of the sales contracts of this case with the plaintiffs as long as they did not go through a resolution at the general meeting of the union members within the scope delegated by the union regulations, since the sales contracts of this case with the plaintiffs for each of the real estate of this case were concluded separately with the plaintiffs within the scope delegated by the union regulations.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the grounds of appeal, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles

3. Conclusion

All appeals are 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 Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)