[1] In a case where a member of a reconstruction association who claimed invalidation of a new apartment unit, such as a lot of houses and houses for the purpose of allocating a new apartment unit, has made a separate agreement with the reconstruction association to waive the apartment unit allocated through the above lot and to allocate the apartment unit scheduled to be sold in general, whether there is a benefit to seek the invalidity confirmation thereof (negative)

[2] The case holding that where a reconstruction association excluded the members entitled to preferential allotment in a newly constructed apartment and allocated the remaining households to the above members after the completion of the drawing of a unit and unit, the procedures for drawing of unit and unit are invalid due to serious defects, and that the above members have the interest to seek confirmation of invalidity

[3] The case holding that, upon the request of a member who has the right of ordinary preferential allotment, where it is confirmed that the selection and allocation of units of units and units for the allocation of a newly-built apartment by a reconstruction association becomes null and void, the remaining allocation of units is null and void if it is inevitable to do so in successive order, and the above members can seek confirmation of invalidity of the entire allocation of units and units

[4] In a lawsuit for confirmation, where there is a benefit to confirm the legal relationship between one party and a third party or the legal relationship between a third party in the lawsuit for confirmation

[5] Whether a reconstruction association can restrict the right to apply for parcelling-out on the ground of non-performance of the ownership transfer registration based on the trust of the association members after the completion of the application for parcelling-out (negative)

[1] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 46 and 48 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents / [2] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 46 and 48 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents / [3] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 46 and 48 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents / [4] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act / [5] Article 20, Article 24(3)

[4] Supreme Court Decision 96Da2549, 25456 decided Jun. 10, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2125), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da20353 decided Aug. 20, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1566), Supreme Court Decision 2005Da9463 decided Apr. 29, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 842)

Plaintiff 1 and 20 others (Attorney Seo-dae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Yan apartment complex reconstruction association (Attorney Kim Sung-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

An intervenor;

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na9431 delivered on October 18, 2006

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant against the plaintiff 8 and 15 shall be reversed, and the judgment of the court of first instance corresponding thereto shall be revoked, and the lawsuit against the plaintiff 8 and 15 shall be dismissed. All remaining appeals shall be dismissed. The total cost of the lawsuit between the plaintiff 8 and 15 shall be borne by each party, including the part resulting from the participation in the lawsuit. The remainder of the costs of appeal, including the part resulting

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

If a partner who asserted that there was a defect in the procedures for drawing lots of units for the allocation of a new apartment by a reconstruction association, and argued that there is a defect in the procedures for the allocation of a new apartment by a reconstruction association, and made a separate agreement between the reconstruction association and the reconstruction association to waive the apartment allocated by drawing lots of units and to allocate the apartment which was scheduled to be sold in general, the member would no longer have a benefit in filing a lawsuit to seek nullification of the distribution of the apartment by drawing lots of units, etc.

According to the evidence and records adopted by the court below, in holding the above 10 new apartment units 1 and 15 on June 16, 2004, the plaintiff 8 and 15 obtained 60 square meters preferential rights pursuant to the management and disposal plan, but assigned 41 square meters to the plaintiff 8, 103 and 2101, and assigned 41 square meters to the plaintiff 15, the plaintiff 8, 15 and the defendant 15 to the above 100 new apartment units 1 and the above 100 units 10 units 10 units 3 units 1 and 100 units 10 units 3 units 5 units 1 and the above 10 units 8 units 10 units 6 units 1 and 3 units 10 units 1 are not assigned to the defendant, but the plaintiff 8 will not be assigned the above 10th unit 208 units 68 units 10, 2004 unit 201 units 10.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the defendant's main defense against the plaintiff 8's lawsuit. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in the lawsuit, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit, and since the plaintiff 15's lawsuit of this case is illegal as it has no interest in the lawsuit pending in the court of final appeal, the judgment of the court below

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to its adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff 19, 20, 21, the owner of the new apartment unit 41 square meters of apartment unit 60 square meters of apartment unit 60 square meters of unit 60 units of unit 60 units of unit 60 units of unit 1 unit 26 units of unit 26 units of unit 60 units of unit 60 units of unit 60 units of unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit 2 unit 1 unit 2 unit 1 unit 60 unit 1 unit 2 unit 1 unit 60 unit 1 unit 60 unit 1 unit 1 unit 60 unit 1 unit 2 unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit 2 unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit 2 unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit 2, unit 1 unit 1 unit 2 unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit.

3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 5

According to the records, in the case where the members of the association are subject to the ordinary allocation of the new apartment in the order of 19,20,21, and the number of units and units of the new apartment in the case of the new apartment in the order of 19,20,21, and the number of units of the new apartment in the case of the new apartment in the order of 60,00 if the number of units and units of the new apartment in the order of 26,00, the number of units and units of the new apartment in the order of 19,00, and the number of units of the new apartment in the order of 19,20,000, the number of units and units of the new apartment in the order of 60,000 will be reduced first, and if the number of units and units of the new apartment in the order of 26,00,000, the number of units and units of the new apartment in the case of the new apartment in the order of 26,000,000.

In addition, since Plaintiff 17 failed to receive the allocation despite the preferential allocation of the 60 square meters of the new apartment of this case, it cannot be deemed that Plaintiff 17 has the right to seek the confirmation of invalidity of the entire 60 square meters of the new apartment of this case, and as long as there is such right, Plaintiff 17 can only seek the confirmation of invalidity of the allocation by two members who do not have the preferential allocation right to the 60 square meters of the new apartment of this case.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below which accepted all the claims of the plaintiffs except the plaintiffs 8 and 15 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bas"), is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the interest in the lawsuit. The grounds of appeal related to this cannot be accepted.

4. As to the fourth ground for appeal

In a lawsuit for confirmation, only the relationship between the parties is not subject to confirmation, but also the relationship between one of the parties and a third party or the relationship between a third party, if there is an apprehension or risk in the relationship between the parties as to the relationship between the parties, and the other party's relationship is an effective and appropriate means to eliminate anxiety or risk in the relationship between the parties' relationship, the legal relationship between the other party and the third party has a benefit in confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da2549, 25456, Jun. 10, 1997, etc.).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the defendant excluded the right of ordinary allotment of new apartment units of the remaining plaintiffs, and based on the conclusion of the contract for sale in lots between the members of the association, the rights or legal status of the remaining plaintiffs to sell new apartment units of the new apartment units shall be caused. In addition, if the reconstruction association executes a large number of legal relations based on the unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, and unit are assigned to the defendant, it is impossible for the other plaintiffs to seek the invalidity of the unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, unit, and unit, and unit to which the members of the association and the remaining members of the plaintiffs of the association of this case have completed the contract for sale in lots of new apartment.

In this regard, the court below's rejection of the defendant's main defense is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the interest in the lawsuit. The argument in the grounds of appeal related to this cannot be accepted.

5. Regarding ground of appeal No. 6

According to the defendant's rules, members shall have the right to claim the sale of housing, etc. under the management and disposal plan, and the matters concerning changes in the rights and obligations of the members shall be determined by the resolution of the general meeting. On the other hand, the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides that the establishment of the management and disposal plan shall follow the resolution of the general meeting of the members (Article 24 (3) 10 of the above Act). Thus, in order for the defendant to restrict the right to apply for a sale on the ground of failing to implement the ownership transfer registration due to the trust of the rest

According to the records, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant imposed restrictions on the right to apply for parcelling-out due to the non-performance of the ownership transfer registration based on the trust by the remaining plaintiffs after the completion of the application for parcelling-out after the general meeting of the association members, etc., and therefore there is no validity of restrictions on the right to apply for parcelling-out. Accordingly, the court below's rejection of the defendant's argument that restrictions on the right to apply for parcelling-out to the remaining plaintiffs is legitimate

6. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant against plaintiffs 8 and 15 is reversed. Since this part is sufficient for the court to directly render a judgment, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this part is revoked, and the lawsuit against plaintiffs 8 and 15 is dismissed, and all appeals against the remaining plaintiffs are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)