1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and maintenance project association established to implement a reconstruction project of apartment and commercial buildings on a lot of land A with a size of 392,652 square meters in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and D large 5,355.3 square meters (hereinafter “instant apartment complex”), and the Defendant is the owner of the instant real estate, which is part of the instant apartment complex.

B. The Plaintiff’s establishment process, the first and second reconstruction resolution 1) The sectional owners of the apartment complex of this case hold an inaugural general meeting of the reconstruction association on May 24, 2003, and 4,280 of the total sectional owners of the apartment complex of this case, among the 6,802 sectional owners of the apartment complex of this case, submit a written resolution in lieu of attendance (hereinafter “the first reconstruction resolution”).

(2) The Plaintiff was established with a sectional owner consisting of 5,786 persons, including the sectional owners who agreed to the re-building resolution and other resolutions in early June 2003, and the Plaintiff was approved by the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 12, 2003, and completed the establishment registration on July 15, 2003, after obtaining authorization for the establishment from the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office on June 12, 2003.

The plaintiff was originally named as a "A apartment reconstruction association", but on July 1, 2003, the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act") changed its name to the plaintiff, and was regarded as a housing reconstruction improvement project association established under the Urban Improvement Act pursuant to Article 10 (1) of the Addenda of the same Act.

3. After that, the first reconstruction resolution was invalid on the ground that some members of the plaintiff did not present specific standards for the apportionment of rebuilding costs, and the Seoul Eastern District Court 2003Kahap5618 filed a lawsuit to nullify the inaugural general meeting resolution.