The purport of Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents that provides for the exercise period of the right to demand sale, and whether the participants in reconstruction can exercise the right to demand sale again by following the procedures such as consent to establish an association and change of establishment, even after the expiration

Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 48 (4) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Condominium

Supreme Court Decision 2006Da56572 Decided February 29, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2008Da40991 Decided January 15, 2009, Supreme Court Decision 2009Da6380 Decided July 15, 2010

South East East Eastern Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (Law Firm Dongin, Attorneys Man- new et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Law Firm Han LLC, Attorneys Lee Jae-han et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na7979 decided August 29, 2012

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

The purpose of Article 48(4) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Act”) which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “the Act”) is to protect the legitimate legal interests of the person who requests sale and to determine legal relations as soon as possible, in light of the fact that the right to request sale becomes effective if it is not exercised within the period of exercise (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da56572, Feb. 29, 2008). However, if it is not exercised within the said period of exercise, the other party to the request for sale does not know at any time and his legal status, and that if it does not restrict the period of exercise, the other party to the request for sale will not be able to make a request for sale, and that the right to request sale is likely to unfairly infringe upon the rights and interests of the other party to the request for sale by setting the time at which the market price of the object of purchase is set.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendants' assertion that the plaintiff's exercise of the plaintiff's right to sell goes against the principle of good faith on the ground that it is difficult to find data to find out that the exercise of the plaintiff's right to sell goes against the principle of good faith on the ground that the plaintiff's exercise of the plaintiff's right to sell can not be deemed as going against the principle of good faith, and that the plaintiff's exercise of the right to sell was conducted to arbitrarily determine the time when the market price of the plaintiff's purchase, who is the other party to the claim for sale, was the lowest, because it was aimed at arbitrarily determining the time when the market price of the purchase, which is the other party to the claim for sale, was the lowest.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to consent to change of the establishment of an association, the authorization for change of establishment, the right to request sale,

2. As to the third ground for appeal

The defendants' assertion in this part of the grounds of appeal as to the purchase object of this case is nothing more than the purport of disputing evidence preparation and fact-finding, which is a fact-finding court, and therefore cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground of appeal. Furthermore, in light of the records, the appraisal of the market price of the appraiser of the court below does not seem to have been erroneous. The ground of appeal as to this part of the ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

In addition, the argument in the grounds of appeal that capital gains tax and business losses to be borne by the Defendants should be included in assessing the market price of real estate for which the right to claim sale has been exercised is a new argument that is only effective in the final appeal. Therefore, this cannot be a legitimate ground of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, 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 Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)