2006 Gohap31226 Nullification of an amendment of the articles of incorporation

206Gahap104377 (Consolidation) Nullification, etc. of reconstruction resolution

1 through 2

1 through 2

1 through 3

Distribution week 2 Complex Housing Reconstruction Project Association

Representative ○○○○

June 7, 2007

July 12, 2007

1. Of the lawsuit in this case, the defendant's resolution on the rebuilding resolution and the resolution on the confirmation of invalidity of the resolution on the apartment portion among the "case of the rebuilding resolution and the resolution on the business plan plan" of the defendant's 14 July 2001, the defendant's resolution on the rebuilding resolution and the resolution on the rebuilding resolution on July 14, 2001, the resolution on the rebuilding part among the "case of the resolution on the reconstruction resolution and the resolution on the business plan plan", the resolution on the "case of the approval on the management and disposal plan" in the special meeting of February 26, 2005, and the resolution on the "case of the amendment of the articles of association" among the cases of subparagraph 1 in the special meeting of September 24, 2005, the resolution on the "case of the amendment of the articles of association" in Article 47 subparagraph 9 of the articles of association and the amendment of the management and disposal plan of the same general meeting.

3. The defendant shall not execute each resolution under the above two paragraphs.

4. The plaintiffs and plaintiffs (designated parties)' remaining claims are dismissed, respectively.

5. The costs of the lawsuit, including the cost of the supplementary participation, are assessed against the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs (appointed parties) and the supplementary intervenors, and the remainder are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's bill No. 1 at its inaugural general meeting on July 14, 2001 "cases of resolution on reconstruction and business plan resolution"

Resolution - Resolution - the Bill No. 5 at the extraordinary general meeting of February 26, 2005 - the case of approval of the management and disposition plan.

Resolution on September 24, 2005 and Resolution on September 24, 2005 and Amendment of the Articles of Incorporation among the items referred to in subparagraph 1 at the extraordinary general meeting of the Association

Resolution on Article 47 subparagraphs 8 and 9 of the Articles of Incorporation, and a management and disposition plan on the agenda item 6 at the same general meeting

A resolution on the "case of light" is confirmed to be null and void, and the defendant shall not enforce each of the above resolutions.

(n).

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of arguments in the statements in Gap evidence 1 through 9, Gap evidence 13, 14, Eul evidence 17, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3-1 through 5, Eul evidence 5-1 through 1242, Eul evidence 6 through 22, Eul evidence 24, and Eul evidence 24.

A. Status of the parties

The defendant association shall hold an inaugural general meeting on July 14, 200, and 230, the members of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Association shall be 1,720 members of the sectional owners of the apartment of this case (referring to 490 members of the existing apartment of 25 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "25 members") and 1,230 members of the members of the 18 square meters-type association (hereinafter referred to as "18 members"), who agree to re-building for the purpose of implementing the housing reconstruction project on the land distribution apartment complex of 18-1,7 lot, and 7 lot lot, the apartment of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case") and the commercial building of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the commercial building of this case"), with the approval of establishment from the Administrator of the Seocho-gu Housing Construction Promotion Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Administrator of 2030 on May 29, 2003") as the members of the association.

1. The former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 7392, Mar. 18, 2005; hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act") is enforced, and the housing reconstruction maintenance and improvement project association which has completed the registration of incorporation on July 14, 2003 pursuant to Article 18 (1) and Article 10 (1) of the Addenda, and the designated parties including the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs (designated parties) and the supplementary intervenors (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs") are members of the defendant's association who own the 18th class apartment among the apartment owners of this case.

B. A resolution for reconstruction at a inaugural general meeting of the defendant association (1) held on July 14, 2001 at the meeting of the defendant association was presented as a resolution for reconstruction and a resolution for business plan in accordance with the contents of the rebuilding resolution and the written consent distributed to the members in advance as an agenda item 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "resolution for reconstruction") and its main contents are as follows:

(A) Design outline of a new building: (b) the cost-sharing under subsection (c)(b) of this section shall be calculated by estimating the estimated project cost for the removal of the building and the construction cost to be determined at the time of approval of the project plan, on the basis of the final public notice of confirmation (not known); and

조합규약에 의거하여 현 소유 주택평형에 따라 비용을 공평하게 분담하며, 관리처분시 가청산하고, 입주 후 청산시 분담금을 최종 확정하는데 동의함 . ○ 사업추진방식은 조합규약이 정하는 바에 따라 총회에서 재적조합원 과반수의 출석과 출석조합원 과반수의 찬성으로 결정한다 .분담금을 정하기 위한 조합원의 권리금액 산정은 아래 ' ① 현 소유 주택평형을 기준으로분담금을 정하는 경우 ' 와 ' ② 현 소유 토지 및 건축물을 평가하여 분담금을 정하는 경우 '중에서 ' 관리처분계획 수립을 위한 총회 ' 에서 조합규약이 정하는 바에 따라 재적조합원 과반수의 출석과 출석조합원 과반수의 찬성으로 확정한다 .【 공동주택 ( 아파트 ) 소유 조합원의 분담금 산정기▷ 도급제 방식으로 사업을 추진하기로 결의한 경우의 비용분담 :① 현 소유주택 평형을 기준으로 분담금을 정하는 경우* 조합원 분담금 = 분양받을 아파트의 분양금액 - ( 당해 ) 조합원의 권리 지분 * 조합원의 권리 지분 = 주택평형별 개발이익금 배분금액 × ( 당해 ) 조합원 현 소유주택 평형 ]별 평균대지면적* 주택평형별 개발이익금 배분금액 = 개발이익금 : 아파트 소유 조합원의 총 소유 대지지분 면적* 개발이익금 = ( 총 분양수입금 - 기타 수입금 ) - ( 건축비 등 총 사업비 )② 현 소유 토지 및 건축물을 감정평가하여 분담금을 정하는 경우* 조합원 분담금 = 분양받을 아파트의 분양금액 - ( 당해 ) 조합원의 권리 지분* 조합원의 권리 지분 = 개발이익금 X ( 당해 ) 조합원의 현 소유 토지 및 건축물 평가액사업구역내 전체조합원의 현 소유 토지 및 건축물 총 평가액▷ 지분제 방식으로 사업을 추진하기로 결의한 경우의 비용분담 :* 시공사선정시 시공사가 제시하는 조합원 권리지분 ( 무상지분 ) 금액과 분양평형별 부담금액에 따른다 .【 상가 등 소유조합원의 분담금산정 】▷ 상가 구분소유권자의 분담금 산정은 별도의 관리처분계획에 따른다 .( 다만, 상가조합원들에게 배부된 동의서에는, 이 부분이 " 상가 소유조합원과의 협의에 의하여 건축계획을 수립하고, 비용을 산출한 후 조합과 상가 소유 조합원이 별도로 합의하는비용분담기준에 따라 비용을 분담하기로 하며, 관리처분계획 수립시 비용분담금액을 최종확정한다. " 고 되어 있음 ) ○ 공동주택 소유조합원의 신축 공동주택 입주평형별 예상부담금액 ( 관리처분시 가청산, 청산시 확정 ) ( 라 ) 신축건물의 구분소유권 귀속에 관한 사항

According to Chapter 7 (Management and Disposal) of the Code of the Association: The sale-type apartment shall be determined based on the application for parcelling-out by the members of the association, and if there is a competition, priority shall be given to the members of the association (previous housing): the sale-type and the determination of the number of houses shall be made in the order of the amount of the bonds (high amount).The sale-type and the determination of the unit shall be made in the order of the amount of the bonds (high amount). If there is competition, the sale-type and the determination of the unit shall be made in the application for parcelling-out, a priority shall be given to the members of the association with the same floor (current) if there is a competition, an appraisal value shall be given to the members of the association, and if there is the same floor, the appraisal value shall be given to the members of the association, and the sale-type and welfare facilities shall be determined by the public lottery: The sale-type and welfare facilities shall be newly constructed in accordance with the provisions of the Rules on Housing Supply; the sale-type and welfare facilities shall be determined by the sale-type 1).

(3) The Defendant Union received the consent to the reconstruction resolution of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “written resolution of this case”) from 1,66 in writing from the total sectional owners of the apartment and commercial building of this case, with the contents of the said rebuilding resolution at its inaugural general meeting, and thereafter, obtained the authorization for the establishment of the reconstruction association from the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 27, 2003 as the consent ratio of at least 4/5 of all sectional owners and at least 2/3 of each building was met.

B. As part of the government's measures to prevent real estate speculation on September 5, 2003, the announcement of a small-sized mandatory ratio system and the approval of a project implementation plan, a regulation bill (small-sized mandatory ratio system) that requires the reconstruction apartment units in the metropolitan area including Seoul to be constructed at least 60% of the total number of households in the area under the exclusive control of not more than 85m of national housing scale (25mp. 7m.) is announced. On November 24, 2004, the floor area of the "west, distribution high-concentration zone" including the apartment units in this case was finally determined at 230%, the Defendant Union conducted a survey on the members of the association on possible measures for the lifelong and household units in order to comply with such regulation.

Based on the results, the project implementation plan was amended to construct 26 square-type 489 households, 34 square-type 978 households, 44 square-type 130 households, 52 square-type 210 households, 62 square-type 231 households, 72 square-type 224 households, 81 square-type 182 households, and was approved on December 31, 2004 by submitting the project implementation plan to the head of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

(c)After receipt of the application for parcelling-out and a resolution of approval of a management and disposal plan at an extraordinary general meeting of persons (1) on February 26, 2005, the Defendant Union received the application for parcelling-out from individual members from January 24, 2005 to February 23, 2005, after the project implementation authorization, and 26 square, 18 squares, 347, 18 squares, 25 squares, 25 squares, 439, 257, 18 squares, 25 squares, 17, 25 squares, and 25 squares, among the applicants for parcelling-out, 18 squares, 25 squares, 174, 25 squares, and 18 squares, 153 squares, 25 squares, 25 squares, and 25 squares, among the applicants for parcelling-out, 34 squares, 25 squares, and 328 squares.

(2) In the special meeting of the defendant union held on February 26, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "special meeting of the first general meeting"), some of the 18-type union members' oppositions continue to exist in the 18-type union because of the above 18-type union members' excessive disadvantages to the 18-type union members who have no priority in the ordinary selection, and the above agenda was resolved with the consent of 1,089 members among the 1,720 union members, and the above agenda was resolved with the consent of 1,089 members among the 1,720 union members, and the main contents are as follows:

(A) A) A summary of the project plan (Article 2) - Calculation of the value of rights to the newly built apartment type and the number of households (b) - The estimated cost of rearrangement project (Article 5(2)) 790, 976, 923,00 won in total (Article 535, 349, 932,00 won in construction cost + The cost of survey and measurement, design, supervision, construction supervision, 12,787, 785, 500 + the cost of compensation + 146,065, 930, 9300 won in total + the cost of management 4,870,000,000 won in total + the amount of incidental expenses 81,903,500 won in total + the amount of reserve funds to be built 10,000,000 won in units of housing units to be supplied to members of an association under Article 28(1) of the Housing Act.

-Methods of determining a flat for the members applying for parcelling-out: ① a difference between the same square (area and previous value);

(2) In the event of competition by the application for parcelling-out, the rebuilding resolution shall be followed, and the method of a balanced allocation shall be allocated to the members of the Council in accordance with the computer system, such as financial resources, if there is any remaining household, and if there is any competition, the members excluded from the first order shall be allocated to the members of the Council in accordance with the deliberation resolution method set forth in the second order.

(1) A main or wounded family member: In principle, the method determined by an agreement between member of a commercial building and the cooperative shall be implemented by an independent settlement system.

(2) Dongnam Commercial Building Association: In principle, it shall be purchased at a price determined by the court in accordance with the result of a lawsuit seeking sale, but may follow the resolution for reconstruction and the project plan if it is intended to consent to the method of independent settlement such as the main commercial building.

(3) Where a member of a commercial building who has given up the sale price of a newly built house desires to sell a newly built house to the member of the commercial building association, the association and the member of the commercial building who has received approval under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall apply the amount equivalent to the share of the right per apartment to the usual area of the member of the commercial building in accordance with an agreement between the association and the member of the commercial building, and the member of the commercial building who falls under the ratio determined by the articles of association pursuant to Article 52 (2) of the Urban Improvement Act, on condition

D. On September 24, 2005, at the special meeting of the union, the amendment of the articles of association and the amendment of the management and disposal plan (1) was proposed from the special meeting of the defendant union held on September 24, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "second special meeting"), and the "case of the amendment of the management and disposal plan" was proposed as the agenda item 6, and the above agenda was approved with the consent of 945 from among the 1,831 members of the whole union, 1,033 members of the 1,031 members of the 1,033 members, and the following main contents are as follows:

(A) The outline of the project plan (Article 2) is the same as the management and disposal plan resolved at the first special meeting: (b) the estimated cost of the rearrangement project (Article 5); 79,00,000,000 won in total ( = 551,195,615,000 won in the construction cost + 12,63,663,426,000 + 130,116,620,6200 + 2,920,000 won in total as management and disposal plan + the incidental expenses + the amount of 72,104,339,000 won in total + the amount of 10,000 won in unit sale among the members of the association and the amount of 15,000 won in units sale (Article 17: 25,00 won in unit sale) resolution among the members of the association.

* An independent settlement system

(1) The amount of the commercial land increased by the shares of the former union members among the main district-centered areas based on the master plan for a district for a district for the distribution density shall be borne by the commercial union members, and the representative body of commercial buildings shall become the main body of business and shall directly take charge of the affairs concerning the construction and sale of new commercial

(2) The amount of redemption for various business expenses (including purchase-added taxes and sales-added taxes), etc. including land purchase expenses and construction expenses for increased commercial land shall be the revenue of the members of commercial buildings when profits accrue in comparison with sales income, etc.

(3) When a loss occurs, members of a commercial building shall be jointly and severally liable for the loss according to the previous ratio of shares of rights.

2) In principle, the owner of a housing unit and welfare facility for a commercial partner shall supply the unit and welfare facility. However, only the member who renounced a commercial building and applied for the sale of an apartment among the commercial members recognized by related statutes may sell one house among the remaining households where the member who owns the commercial building purchases the apartment house and the remaining households where the estimated value of the unit of sale (26 square) multiplied by 18/100 is higher than that of the minimum unit of sale among the commercial members recognized by related statutes, one house may be sold to the member who owns the commercial building. (2) In addition, at the second special general meeting of the above second general meeting, the case of the amendment of the articles of association was presented as an agenda item 1 and passed with the consent of 944 persons. The relevant contents of the instant case are as follows.

Article 47 (Standards for Management and Disposal Plans): The management and disposal plans concerning the properties owned by the association members pursuant to the provisions of Article 48 (7) of the Urban Improvement Act shall be based on the methods and standards set forth in the following subparagraphs: Provided, That where the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance or the Urban Improvement Act separately prescribes within the scope set forth in the following subparagraphs, the association shall obtain the consent of the association members and then set the standards separately at the management and disposal general meeting and thereafter set the standards accordingly;

19. An appurtenant or welfare facility (including land annexed thereto) shall be supplied to the owner of the appurtenant or welfare facility, and where the value of the existing appurtenant or welfare facility is higher than the value of the commercial building among the commercial building members recognized by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and applied for parcelling-out housing, only for the members who have given up the commercial building and applied for parcelling-out housing, the value of the existing appurtenant or welfare facility may be supplied to the owner of the appurtenant or welfare facility, out of the remaining households remaining after supplying it to the housing association members. In such cases, it shall be limited to the remaining households after giving priority to the allotment

E. According to Article 20(3) of the Urban Improvement Act, where a cooperative intends to amend its articles of association, the cooperative obtained the approval of the head of Si/Gun with the consent of at least two-thirds of its members. As such, the Defendant cooperative received a written consent on the amendment of its articles of association from 1,242 (67.75%) out of 1,83 members (two members are added after the second special meeting) up to April 19, 2006.

2. Determination as to the claim to nullify the invalidity of the rebuilding resolution of this case at its inaugural general meeting (the agenda of subparagraph 1)

A. The plaintiffs' assertion (1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A rebuilding resolution is an Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings").

Pursuant to Article 47 (3), "a summary of the design of the new building", "a summary of expenses incurred in the removal of the new building and construction of the new building", "a summary of expenses incurred in such removal and apportionment thereof," and "ags on the ownership of sectional ownership of the new building". Since the rebuilding agreement of the defendant association in this case cannot be predicted at all regarding the cost sharing of the removal of the building and construction of the new building in relation to the building in this case, the written resolution in this case is null and void. (2) The summary of the defendant association's assertion is as follows.

The Defendant Union set the outline of the construction of the new building, the ownership of sectional ownership, and the share of expenses in the project plan, etc. of the reconstruction association, as far as possible, in the initial stage of reconstruction, and thereafter, obtained the consent of the members of the commercial building to implement the reconstruction project of the commercial sector by the independent settlement method in the resolution of the instant management and disposal plan, and under the above circumstances, the rebuilding resolution cannot be deemed null and void even if the members of the commercial building did not set the share of expenses in the rebuilding resolution of this case.

B. According to Article 47 (3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, whether there was a provision on the apportionment of expenses for the removal of the building and construction of the new building when a rebuilding resolution is adopted (1) the estimated amount and the apportionment of expenses for the said rebuilding expenses shall be determined. The matters concerning the estimated amount and apportionment of the rebuilding expenses shall be the standard for the sectional owners to bear reasonable expenses, and whether the sectional owners will participate in the reconstruction, sell sectional ownership, etc. in accordance with the market price, and choose not to participate in the reconstruction. Thus, the method of determination shall not be omitted in the rebuilding resolution, but it shall be sufficient to determine the apportionment or standard to the extent that it may not be agreed again at the stage of the rebuilding implementation (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da1952, 19569, Feb. 23, 2006, etc.).

In addition, matters concerning the allotment of rebuilding cost as an effective requirement for the rebuilding resolution are that the owner of the apartment house and commercial building can apply for the reconstruction cost, how the appraisal of the existing apartment house and commercial building can be made, how the value of the newly constructed apartment and commercial building can be applied for in the future compared with the appraised value of the existing apartment and commercial building, and that the allocation cost or calculation basis should be set to the extent that it does not reach an agreement on the rebuilding cost sharing at the implementation stage. (2) According to the resolution of the general meeting held on July 14, 2001, the standard for calculating the rebuilding cost of the commercial building should be set separately in the above general meeting, and the standard for calculating the ownership cost of the commercial building should not be set separately from the existing management and disposal plan to the extent that the association members did not reach an agreement on the reconstruction cost sharing. (3) In the case of the association members to set the cost sharing standard for the reconstruction cost of the commercial building and the standard for calculating the cost of the association members to the extent that they did not own it.

C. Whether the entire written resolution of this case is null and void

However, in the case of reconstruction of a number of apartment buildings in a single complex, it is reasonable to view that there has been a resolution on the "a summary of the design of a new building", "a summary of the cost required for demolition of a building and construction of a new building", "a estimated amount of cost required for demolition of a building and construction of a new building and matters concerning the ownership of sectional ownership of a new building", and "a matter concerning the ownership of sectional ownership of a new building", and it seems that the contents of reconstruction of an apartment part can be separated from that of a commercial part, because the contents of reconstruction project meet the requirements for reconstruction resolution, and further, if the contents of reconstruction project can be divided into some Dongs that meet the requirements for reconstruction resolution and the remaining parts that do not meet the requirements for reconstruction resolution, the resolution on the portion of an apartment in the written resolution in this case can be valid as to the matters stipulated in Article 47 (3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act as well as the resolution on the resolution in this case.

D. Sub-committee

Ultimately, among the rebuilding resolution of this case, the resolution on the apartment portion becomes effective by meeting all necessary requirements for reconstruction by the written resolution of this case around June 27, 2003. However, the resolution on the commercial part is still null and void because it does not meet the substantial requirements necessary for reconstruction resolution. Therefore, among the plaintiffs' claims seeking confirmation of invalidity of the rebuilding resolution of this case, the part seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution on the apartment portion is illegal as seeking confirmation of past legal relations, and ② the part seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution on the commercial part is illegal, and the defendant union disputes the validity of the resolution on the commercial part, and thus the plaintiffs are entitled to seek confirmation of invalidity. In addition, as long as the above part of the resolution is null and void, the defendant union should not execute this part of the resolution.

3. Determination on the claim to nullify the invalidity of a management and disposal plan amendment resolution at the first special meeting (the agenda item No. 5) and at the second special meeting (the agenda item No. 6)

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion (1) the total estimated cost of a reconstruction project under the management and disposal plan that was resolved at the first and second extraordinary session of the Plaintiffs’ assertion has increased considerably compared to the total estimated cost of the reconstruction resolution of this case. This is a significant change in the matters concerning the cost sharing of the reconstruction resolution of this case. In order to make such a change, the resolution by the consent of at least 4/5 of the entire members is required, but the resolution on the said part is null and void.

(B) According to the management and disposal plan adopted at the first and second special meetings, the number of ordinary and large-scale apartment units of new buildings increases in the number of small-sized and large-scale types, and the number of households of large-type apartment units of 40 to 60 square. As a result, the 18 ordinary members, who do not have priority in choosing ordinary types, are relatively deprived of the opportunity for members to receive allocation of large-scale types of punishment compared to those of 25 ordinary members, and have been practically forced to receive allocation of small-sized or large-scale types of punishment, which is obviously contrary to the equity among sectional owners, and thus, the resolution approved each management and disposal plan that includes the above contents is null and void.

(C) According to the management and disposition plan adopted at the first and second special meetings, with respect to the allocation of construction cost to the contractor, a small amount of a new apartment among the members who are subject to tax exemption should bear part of the value-added tax according to the ratio of the value of rights to the purchaser of the new apartment, which is contrary to Article 47(3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act. This is null and void as it harms equity among the members.

(2) A resolution of approval of a management and disposal plan at the first and second special meeting of the Defendant’s assertion (A) is a legitimate resolution made by meeting the quorum in accordance with the articles of incorporation of the Defendant Union. (b) Although the estimated cost of the project under the above management and disposal plan increases more than the rebuilding at the time of the instant rebuilding, the amount of the average cost of the association members decreased compared to the rebuilding at the time of the instant rebuilding resolution.

Since the rebuilding resolution of this case can not be seen as significantly disadvantageously changed to the members of the association.

(C) Changes in the level and number of households under the above management and disposal plan were inevitably made in order to obtain project implementation authorization due to the introduction of a small-scale obligatory ratio system on September 5, 2003 by the Government on November 24, 2004, and the usage ratio of high-level district for initial and distribution density was determined to be 230% by 230%. As a result, the Defendant Cooperative conducted a survey on the methods for deliberation and number of households of new buildings, based on which the results were determined. As a result, in the event of competition in the application level, the applicants were to allocate the new apartment in the order of large amount of the value of rights to the new building, it does not violate the equity among the members. (d) By evaluating the above new building by including only the new building in the size of national housing at the time of evaluation of the value of new building, the value-added tax was imposed on only the members who purchased the new building, and the alteration of the content of the value-added tax was made to 15% or more among the members.

B. Whether approval of each management and disposal plan (amended) is null and void (1) first, we examine whether a resolution on each of the above management and disposal plans constitutes a resolution to alter the matters concerning the cost sharing of the reconstruction resolution in this case.

According to Article 47 (2) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, a resolution for reconstruction shall be adopted by a majority of not less than 4/5 of both sectional owners and voting rights. According to Article 47 (3) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, when a resolution for reconstruction is adopted, matters concerning the removal of a building and the sharing of expenses incurred in constructing a new building and matters concerning the ownership of sectional ownership of a new building shall be determined. In light of the impact of a resolution for reconstruction after a resolution for reconstruction, in light of the effects of a change on the interests of members, it is necessary to adopt Article 47 (2) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, which provides for the quorum at the time of a resolution for reconstruction, to the extent that it does not exceed the ordinarily reasonable scope according to the changing situation of a construction game, such as price fluctuations, etc. (Article 47 (2) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, etc.).

In this case, the facts that the estimated project costs estimated at the time of the reconstruction were KRW 526,753,735,00, and the estimated project costs estimated at the time of the reconstruction were KRW 790,976, 923, 920, 779, 00, 000, and KRW 00 in each of the management and disposition plans resolved at the first and second special meetings of this case are as seen earlier.

However, as seen earlier, ① the expenses for the reconstruction project are equally apportioned according to the current 7th unit of housing; ② the method of promoting the project was decided as the contract; ② the final amount of the expenses for the reconstruction project was decided as the general meeting for formulating the management and disposal plan; ② the amount of the expenses for the reconstruction project was determined as the shares of the association members at the time of selecting the contractor in the fixed 7th unit of shares; ② the amount of the expenses for the reconstruction project was calculated according to the shares of the association members at the time of deducting the expenses for the reconstruction project at 0th unit of 6th unit of 7th unit of 7th unit of 6th unit of 6th unit of 6th unit of 6th unit of 6th unit of 6th unit of 7th unit of 6th unit of 6th unit of 7th unit of 6th unit of 6th unit of 7th unit of 6th unit of 6th unit of 7th unit of 6th unit of 7th unit of 6th unit of 7th unit of 7th unit of 7th unit of 7. It was difficult to establish the project plan of 77.

According to the rebuilding resolution of this case, 25 square-type apartment units 572 units, 878 units of 41 square-type apartment units, 379 units of 47 square-type apartment units, 54 square-type 260 units of 63 square-type apartment units, 114 units of 63 square-type apartment units, 367 units of 40 to 317 units (564 households + 260 households + 114 units of 260), among the 1 and 25 units of 28 square-type apartment units, 34 square-type apartment units of 26 square-type 24 square-type apartment units of 26 square-type 42, 47 square-type 24 square-type apartment units of 28 square-type 24 square-type apartment units of 27 square-type 24, 261 square-type apartment units of 27 square-type 28 square-type 24.

According to the above facts, if reconstruction was implemented in accordance with the previous rebuilding resolution, the former 18,25 square owners shared new apartments according to the amount allocation method as above.

Even if it appears that the owner could have maintained a reasonable proportional relationship with each other in the allocation of a type. However, in consideration of the ratio of small-sized apartment units and the floor area ratio of 230% confirmed by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant Union would increase the number of households of small-sized apartment units, and build a large-type apartment unit of 70,80 square units, which was no at the time of the reconstruction resolution. On the other hand, after changing the number of households of large-type apartment units from 40 to 60 square units, the number of households of large-type 18 square units, which are significant-type members who have no preferential right to select, is remarkably reduced the possibility of allocating apartment units to 40 to 60 square units, and as a result, in the event of 52 square units, the decision on the allocation of a unit unit of 20 square units, which clearly leads to the excessive proportion between the members of the previous management and disposal plan, which would substantially result in the excessive allocation of a unit of 18 square units and 25 square units.

C. In the event that 4/5 or more of the members of the association enter into a contract for sale in lots with the defendant association upon the written consent of a new rebuilding resolution, it is difficult to conclude that the defects of the existing resolution were cured by deeming the contract for sale in lots as written consent of the new rebuilding resolution, and that it is difficult to conclude a contract for sale in lots with the union members as consent to the modification of rebuilding resolution, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise, the defendant's assertion on this is groundless.

D. Sub-committee

Ultimately, the resolution of approval of the management and disposal plan at the first special meeting and the resolution of amendment to the management and disposal plan at the second special meeting are all null and void due to the above serious defects. In addition, as long as each of the above resolutions becomes null and void, the Defendant Union shall not execute it.

4. Determination as to the claim to nullify the invalidity of a resolution on a resolution under subparagraphs 8 and 9 of Article 47 among the cases of the amendment of the articles of association at the second special meeting (the agenda item No. 1)

A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion (1) The resolution on Article 47 subparagraph 8 of the articles of association among the cases of amendment of the articles of association at the second special general meeting of the defendant association is to change the standard for attribution of sectional ownership of a newly constructed building from one household to two houses for one household. This constitutes a modification of the rebuilding resolution of this case by analogy Article 47 (2) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, which requires a resolution with the consent of at least 4/5 of all union members, but the quorum was not fulfilled. Thus, the resolution on the above part is null and void.

(2) A resolution on Article 47 subparag. 9 of the Articles of Incorporation among the cases of the amendment of the articles of incorporation at the second special meeting of the Defendant Union (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Union”) is to be adopted as to the standards for members who can be supplied with a house among the owners of ancillary and welfare facilities, except as otherwise provided for in Article 52(2) subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, but did not obtain consent of all the members.

B. Determination on the part concerning the resolution under Article 47 subparag. 8 of the Articles of Incorporation (1) the law and enforcement decree relating to the above resolution are as follows.

Article 44-3 (Construction of Housing by Reconstruction Association)

(6) Where one household from among the reconstruction members owns two or more houses or one house is owned by two or more persons in co-ownership, it shall be deemed one member and only one house shall be supplied.

Article 48 (Authorization, etc. for Management and Disposal Plans)

(2) The details of management and disposal plans under paragraph (1) shall be as follows:

7. Where one household owns 2 or more houses for a housing reconstruction project, 2 or more houses may be supplied: Provided, That where one household owns 2 or more houses in the area as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation as deemed likely to speculation, it shall supply 2 or less houses even if it owns 2 or more houses;

(2) According to Article 47(2) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, a resolution for reconstruction shall be adopted by a majority of not less than four fifths of both sectional owners and voting rights. According to Article 47(3) and (4) of the same Act, when a resolution for reconstruction is adopted, matters, etc. concerning the reversion of sectional ownership of new buildings shall be determined, and such matters shall not be determined in an equitable manner among sectional owners. The above matters shall not be determined in order for each sectional owner to maintain equity. Thus, even if the contents of the resolution for reconstruction are substantially modified, the consent of not less than four fifths of the members shall be required by applying Article 47(2) of the same Act, which provides for the quorum for resolution for reconstruction, in light

At the time of the inaugural general meeting, the defendant union passed a resolution on the draft of the association agreement to provide one house to one member at the time of sale in lots pursuant to the Housing Construction Promotion Act, which was in force and applied at the time of the inaugural general meeting. The Urban Improvement Act, which was in force from July 1, 2003, provides that one household can supply two or more houses in the case of reconstruction in the case of housing (or two or more houses in question), as stated in Article 47 subparagraph 8 of the draft of the association proposed at the second special meeting, as stated in the above provision, "No. 47 subparagraph 8 of the draft of the association, which was designated as a project area as an overheated speculative district, and has owned one household or two or more houses in the same person, as stated in the above provision, shall supply two houses or less, and the standard for sale of one house for one household, one of the whole members 1, 831, 945 members present at the meeting, and two or more members of the association shall obtain the written consent of the association to modify.

However, in the instant case where there is no evidence to determine the proportion of members who own two or more houses among the entire members, and there is no evidence to determine the degree of influence on the attribution of divided ownership of all the members in the event that they are supplied two houses, the fact that the Defendant Union changed the apartment sale standard to the extent that it can supply two or more houses to the members who own two or more houses in accordance with the laws and regulations enforced and applied at that time, alone, it is difficult to conclude that there is a significant and substantial change in the contents of the rebuilding resolution in the instant case to the extent that the identity is lost, or that there is a significant violation of the equity among the sectional owners, and there is no evidence to find otherwise. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

C. Determination on the part concerning the resolution under Article 47 subparag. 9 of the Articles of Incorporation (1) the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Enforcement Decree relating to the above resolution are as follows:

Article 48 (Authorization, etc. for Management and Disposal Plans)

(7) Necessary matters concerning the details of management and disposal plans, standards for methods of management and disposal, etc. shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 52 (Standards, etc. for Management and Disposal)

(2) In cases of a housing reconstruction project, the methods and standards referred to in Article 48 (7) of the Act shall be as follows: Provided, That where the Municipal Ordinance of a City/Do prescribes otherwise within the scope falling under each of the following subparagraphs, such management and disposal shall govern; and where the association separately determines such standards with the consent of all members of the association, such standards

2. A person who owns appurtenant or welfare facilities (including land annexed thereto) shall supply appurtenant or welfare facilities; (c) however, he may supply one house in any of the following cases:

(a) Where no new appurtenant or welfare facilities are built, the value of the existing appurtenant or welfare facilities shall be larger than the value calculated by multiplying the estimated value of the unit unit among the houses to be sold in lots by the ratio prescribed by articles of association, etc. (in cases not prescribed by articles of association, etc., it shall be one; hereinafter the same shall apply in item (b)).

C. According to Article 52(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act, the estimated value of the newly supplied appurtenant welfare facilities is larger than that of the unit unit among the houses to be sold in lots (2). The proviso of Article 52(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act provides that the association may supply one house to the owner of the appurtenant and welfare facilities, and the amount calculated by subtracting the estimated value of the newly supplied appurtenant welfare facilities from the value of the existing appurtenant welfare facilities is higher than that determined by the articles of association, etc., or (b) the estimated value of the newly supplied appurtenant welfare facilities is greater than that of the unit unit unit among the houses to be sold in lots (c) and (b) the association provides that the above estimated value of the newly supplied appurtenant welfare facilities is less than that of the unit unit unit to be sold in lots (in the case of item (a), new appurtenant and welfare facilities are not constructed in the case of item (b) and that the association is invalid than that of the existing unit unit to be sold in lots. According to the above provision of Article 7(1)1) of the Act, the Act provides that the remaining value of the association’s.

D. Sub-committee

Ultimately, among the cases of the amendment of the articles of association at the second special meeting of the Defendant Union, a resolution on Article 47 subparag. 8 of the articles of association shall be valid upon meeting all necessary requirements. A resolution on Article 47 subparag. 9 of the cases of the amendment of the articles of association at the same general meeting shall be null and void without meeting the requirements prescribed by the Acts and subordinate statutes. In addition, insofar as the resolution on Article 47 subparag. 9 of the above articles of association is null and void, the Defendant

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' resolution on the invalidity of the resolution on the apartment portion among the rebuilding resolution in this case at the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the plaintiffs is unlawful and dismissed. The resolution on the commercial building portion among the rebuilding resolution in this case at the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the shareholders, the resolution on the case of approval of the management and disposal plan at the first general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the association as to Article 47 subparagraph 19 of the articles of association, the resolution on the invalidity of the resolution on the modification of the management and disposal plan

Judges Kim Jae-soo

Judges Cho Jong-tae

Judges Song-hee