The validity of the resolution of the general meeting of redevelopment association members who amend the articles of incorporation to the extent that the basic date for determining whether a member is subject to parcelling-out is not the expiration date of the period of application for parcelling-out, but the date when the management and disposal plan is formulated.

According to Articles 33(2), 34(1), and 35 of the Urban Redevelopment Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5116, Dec. 29, 1995); Articles 2 subparag. 2, 26, and 27(1) of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Urban Redevelopment Project, the contents of the management and disposal plan, such as determination of members subject to parcelling-out, are to be determined on the basis of the expiration date of the period for application for parcelling-out. Meanwhile, the Act provides that the redevelopment association's implementation of the project shall obtain authorization from the administrative agency after the resolution of the general meeting of the association members with regard to certain matters (Article 18(1), 22(1), and 34(1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act; Article 2 subparag. 2, Article 26, and Article 27(1) of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Urban Redevelopment Project, such as determination of members subject to parcelling-out, shall be determined on the basis of the expiration date of the period for application for parcelling-out; and the determination of rights of the redevelopment project.

Articles 1, 18(1)1, 21, 22(1), 33(2), 34(1), and 35 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, Article 42(2) of the Civil Act, Article 2 Subparag. 2, 26, and 27(1) of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Urban Redevelopment (amended by Act No. 5116, Dec. 29, 195)

Plaintiff

[Defendant-Appellant] Housing Improvement Development Cooperatives (Law Firm Dong, Attorney Kim Hong-han, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu6912 delivered on December 22, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

According to the records, at the meeting of the defendant association on September 24, 1998, it is found that there was a resolution to change the date of establishment of the management and disposal plan to the base date of the determination.

However, according to Articles 33(2), 34(1), and 35 of the Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 5116 of Dec. 29, 195; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), and Articles 2 subparag. 2, 26, and 27(1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Urban Redevelopment Project, the contents of the management and disposal plan shall be determined based on the expiration date of the application period for parcelling-out. Meanwhile, in order to achieve the legislative purpose of promoting redevelopment projects and contributing to the sound development of the city and the promotion of public welfare, the Act provides that the redevelopment association's implementation of projects shall obtain approval from the administrative agency after the resolution of the general meeting of the members (Article 18(1), 22(1), and 34(1) and Article 21 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the modification of the articles of association, and the purport of the plan shall be determined by the competent administrative agency for parcelling-out and its contents shall not be affected by the amendment of the articles of association (Article 2).

Although there is no inappropriate part in the judgment of the court below, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the provisions of the articles of association on the base date of the decision of members subject to sale were modified by the resolution of the general meeting of the defendant association is just, and there is no error of law in

In addition, when examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it is just that the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's land size and the area of land additionally acquired by the plaintiff should be determined as a partner of the land subject to parcelling-out after adding the land size owned by the plaintiff at the time of expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out and the area of land additionally acquired after the expiration of the period for

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)