Plaintiff 1 and four others (Law Firm Seomun, Attorneys Gyeong-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Sub-five District Housing Redevelopment Project Association Establishment Promotion Committee (Attorney Park Sung-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

November 20, 2009

1. Of a resolution made at a residents' general meeting held by the Defendant on July 17, 2008, it is confirmed that the resolution delegated to the Defendant with the authority to conclude the contract is null and void.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Holding of the defendant's general meeting of residents of this case

(1) Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “the Act”), the Defendant obtained the consent of 664 persons (60.47% of the total owners of the land, etc. in the said project area (hereinafter “the Act”), among the 1,098 owners of the land, etc. in the said project area, for the purpose of the housing redevelopment project (hereinafter “the redevelopment project in this case”) consisting of the total of 118,400 square meters of the 763 lots, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City vice-dong (number 1 omitted), and obtained approval from the head of Bupyeong-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the Promotion Committee”), and the Plaintiffs are the owners of the land, etc. in the said project area.

(2) On July 1, 2008, the Defendant announced the owners of the land, etc. located in the project district of the above project to hold a residents' general meeting on the matters other than "the selection of a rearrangement project management contractor and the delegation of the conclusion of a contract" (hereinafter "the instant agenda"), and on July 17, 2008, around 18:00, at the ○○ church located in the vice-dong, Incheon Bupyeong-gu, Incheon (number 2 omitted), held a residents' general meeting (hereinafter "the instant residents' general meeting"). The number of participants at the time held 1,11 of the total owners of the land, etc. located in the project district of the above 618 [the number of 13 persons initially increased due to the division of land shares] 618 persons [4 persons from among 664 persons who agreed to the composition of the promotion committee of the promotion committee = 374 persons directly responsible for the investment ＋ 123 persons) ＋ 129,219 persons directly consenting to the resolution

B. The resolution of the selection of this case and the letter of written consent of the defendant

(1) The main contents of the instant agenda were as follows: (a) the rearrangement project management business entity specialized in the rearrangement project management business that responded to the Defendant’s competitive bid; (b) the management business entity specialized in the rearrangement project that will conclude a service contract with the Defendant among the rearrangement project management business entity specialized in the rearrangement project management business; and (c) the management business entity specialized in the rearrangement project that will conclude a service contract with the Defendant among the rearrangement project management business entities specialized in the rearrangement project (hereinafter “Aiwon City Maintenance andplplf franchise”) and the management business entity specialized in the urban rearrangement project; and (d) the Defendant was entrusted with the authority to conclude the contract; (e) the number of consenters to the Ei Urban Maintenance andplplf franchise consortiums is 479 (=391 persons invested in the written resolution + 88 persons directly attending the written resolution); and (e) the number of consenterss to the Gi urban rearrangement project (49 + 12 persons directly attending the resolution to select the management business entity specialized in the rearrangement project (hereinafter “the instant resolution”).

(2) However, at the time of the instant selection resolution, the written resolution submitted by 391 members, who agreed to the above AB city maintenance and fluor franchise consortium, among 479 members who agreed to the above AB city maintenance and fluor franchise, was affixed only a part of the seal imprint. On the other hand, the certificate of the seal imprint was not attached, and 88 members, who agreed to vote, did not separately affix the seal imprint seal imprint and submit a written written consent accompanied by the certificate of the seal imprint.

(3) After that, from August 2009 to October 10 of the same year, the Defendant received written consent from 369 persons, including land, etc., for which the Promotion Committee had agreed to organize the Promotion Committee from August 2009, when the instant lawsuit was in progress, whose seal impression is affixed to the instant agenda and a written consent accompanied by a certificate of personal seal impression was submitted.

(c) the relevant regulations;

[The Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9401 of Jan. 30, 2009; hereinafter “Act”)]

Article 14 (Functions of Promotion Committee)

(1) The promotion committee shall perform the following duties:

2. Selection of the specialized management businessman of rearrangement project under Article 69 (hereinafter referred to as the “specialized management businessman of rearrangement project”);

(3) Where the details of duties performed under paragraph (1) are accompanied by the bearing of costs by the owners of lands, etc. or cause changes in rights and duties, the promotion committee shall obtain the consent of the owners of lands, etc. in excess of the ratio prescribed by

Article 17 (Method of Consent by Owners of Land, etc.)

Matters necessary for the methods and procedures, etc. for computing consent of the owners of lands, etc. under Articles 13 through 16 shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

[Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20947 of July 29, 2008)]

Article 23 (Consent of Owners of Land, etc. on Duties of Promotion Committee)

(1) The promotion committee under Article 14 (3) of the Act shall obtain the consent of the owners of lands, etc. in accordance with the following standards, when the contents of its business are accompanied by the bearing of costs or cause any change in rights and duties. In such cases, matters other than those falling under each of the following subparagraphs shall be governed by the

2. Matters requiring consent of a majority of the owners of lands, etc. consenting to organizing the promotion committee;

(a) Selection of the specialized management businessman of rearrangement project under Article 69 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the “specialized management businessman of rearrangement project”);

(2) Article 28 (1) and (4) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the number of consenters of the owners of lands, etc. under paragraph (1).

Article 28 (Methods of Calculating Consent Number of Owners of Land, etc.)

(4) The consent (including the withdrawal of consent) of the owners of lands, etc. under Articles 13 through 16 of the Act shall be made by the method of the written consent using a seal imprint design, and in such cases, the certificate of the seal imprint shall be attached thereto (hereinafter referred to as

【Defendant’s Operational Rules】

Article 8 (Consent of Owners of Land, etc.) (1) The Promotion Committee shall obtain the consent of the owners of land, etc. according to the standards falling under each of the following subparagraphs under Article 14 (3) of the

2. Matters requiring consent of a majority of the owners of lands, etc. consenting to organizing the promotion committee;

(a) Selection and alteration of the specialized management businessman of rearrangement project under Article 28 (1);

(3) The consent (including the withdrawal of consent) of the owners of lands, etc. under paragraph (1) shall be made by the method of the written consent using the seal imprint design, and a certificate of the personal seal impression shall be attached thereto (hereinafter

Article 21 (Matters to be Resolved by General Meeting of Residents)

The following matters shall be determined through a resolution of the residents' general meeting:

3. Selection and replacement of a specialized management businessman of rearrangement projects;

Article 22 (Resolution Method of General Meeting of Residents)

(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided for in the Act and this operating regulations, a residents' general meeting shall be held with attendance of a majority of landowners who have agreed to organize a promotion committee, and pass resolutions with the consent of a majority of owners of land

(2) The owners of lands, etc. may exercise their voting rights in writing or by proxy falling under each subparagraph of Article 13 (2). In such cases, the exercise of voting rights in writing shall be deemed attendance under paragraph (1).

(3) The owners of lands, etc. shall, when making an appearance in writing under paragraph (2), make sure that they arrive at the promotion committee by the day before the residents' general meeting.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 5, Gap evidence 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 4-1 to 369, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs

Since the contents of the instant agenda are accompanied by the cost of the owner of the land, etc. or cause changes in the rights and obligations, the instant agenda is not a method of resolution by the general residents’ meeting as prescribed in Article 22 of the Operational Rules, but a valid resolution on the instant agenda at the instant resident’s meeting is not a method of resolution by the general residents’ meeting as prescribed in Articles 14(3), 28(4), and 23(1)2(a), and 28(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 8(1)2(a) and (3) of the Operational Rules of the Defendant, not only the consent of a majority of the owners of the land, etc. who consented to the composition of the Promotion Committee, but also the consent should be made by the method of written consent with a seal imprint attached thereto. However, the instant selection resolution is null and void because some seal imprint was not affixed or all a seal imprint was not attached to the resolution by the 391-party resolution consenting to the instant selection resolution.

B. Defendant

(1) Since the written consent of the owner of the land, etc. pursuant to Article 14(3) of the Act and Article 8 of the Rules on the Management of the Defendant and the resolution at the residents’ general meeting pursuant to Article 22 of the Rules on the Management of the Defendant are different procedures, in calculating the quorum required for the resolution at the residents’ general meeting, only the requirement for the resolution at the residents’ general meeting is satisfied, and it is not necessarily necessary to attach the certificate of seal impression

(2) Meanwhile, apart from the instant selection resolution, the Defendant: (a) from 369 owners, such as the land, etc., who agreed to organize the promotion committee; and (b) from 369 owners, a majority of 664 persons, the Defendant affixed a seal impression on the selection of the E-won City Maintenance and Promotion Committee as a specialized management businessman; and (c) received a written consent accompanied by a certificate of seal impression; and (d) thus, the selection of a specialized

3. Determination

(a) Whether a seal imprint is affixed to a resolution of a resident general meeting for the selection of a management entity specialized in improvement projects and a written consent accompanied by a certificate of seal imprint;

(1) According to Article 21 of the Defendant’s Operational Rules, one of the matters resolved by the residents’ general meeting is to select and change a rearrangement project management contractor, and Article 22 of the same Regulations provides that the residents’ general meeting shall hold a meeting with the attendance of the majority of the owners of the land, etc., which agreed to organize the promotion committee, except as otherwise provided for in the Act and this Operational Rule, and shall pass a resolution with the consent of

However, as seen earlier, Articles 14(3), 17 of the Act, Article 23(1) and (2), and Article 28(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 8(1) and (3) of the Rules on the Management of the Defendant provide that when the promotion committee selects a specialized management contractor for rearrangement projects, the committee must obtain consent from a majority of the owners of the land, etc. who have agreed to organize the promotion committee, such as the land, etc. that “the consent of the owners of the land, etc., such as the land, etc., shall be

Therefore, as such, as the Act and the Defendant’s operating regulations specifically provide for the selection and change of a management entity specialized in improvement projects separately from the required quorum and the type of consent, even under Article 22 of the Defendant’s operating regulations, where a management entity specialized in improvement projects is selected through a resolution of a residents’ general meeting, the quorum shall be subject to the consent of a majority of the owners, such as the land that agreed to organize the promotion committee, and the method of consent shall be based on the method of obtaining written consent accompanied by a seal imprint

On the contrary, Articles 14(3), 17, 23(1) and (2), and 28(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 8(1) and (3) of the Rules on Operation of the Defendant do not apply to the case where a resident general meeting selects a management entity specialized in improvement projects, and the Defendant’s assertion that the method meets only the general quorum under Article 22 of the Rules on Operation of the Defendant, and that the method does not necessarily necessarily require the method of written consent using a seal imprint, is merely an independent opinion.

(2) On July 17, 2008, at the Residents' General Meeting held on the instant selection, the Defendant did not submit a certificate of personal seal from the persons who submitted the instant selection at all while making a written resolution, and the fact that the owners, such as the land, etc., who consented to the composition of the Promotion Committee among the direct participants, did not separately affix a certificate of personal seal impression and did not submit a written written consent using the certificate of personal seal impression is recognized as above. Accordingly, the instant selection resolution is null and void, since the number of effective resolution holders did not meet the quorum (at least 333 of the owners, such as the land, etc., who agreed to the composition of the Promotion Committee).

B. Whether a correction or supplementation can be made by the method of submitting a written written consent with a seal imprint affixed and a seal imprint affixed thereto with respect to the invalid selection resolution of this case

(1) With respect to a resolution of invalidation from the beginning, even if there is an amendment of the law that mitigates the quorum, or an additional consent of the owner of a part of land, etc., such defect may not be cured or supplemented, and thus, become effective.

Furthermore, the purport of the strict provision of the above method of consent under this Act, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the regulations on the management of the defendant is to guarantee the authenticity of the owner's intent, such as land. However, if it is possible to supplement the written consent later, the above provision may de facto be penalized to guarantee the authenticity of the owner's intent, such as land. Even though the resolution of the residents' general meeting on the selection of a management entity specialized in improvement projects becomes null and void, if it is possible to convert the designation of a management entity specialized in improvement projects to a valid period through subsequent supplementation, the validity of the selection of the management entity specialized in improvement projects remains undetermined for a long time and may cause many confusions in legal relations from the beginning of the redevelopment project. In light of the above,

(2) Therefore, as seen earlier, insofar as the instant selection resolution becomes invalid due to the failure to meet the quorum, even if the Defendant received written written consent with the seal impression affixed by the majority of the owners, such as the land, etc. which agreed to the composition of the promotion committee during the instant lawsuit, and the written consent accompanied by the seal impression, it cannot be corrected or supplemented the defects of the instant selection resolution already invalidated.

(3) The defendant's assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Don (Presiding Judge)