[1] In a case where an apartment is already sold to a third party, but the registration of ownership preservation remains in the name of the seller as a result of the sale of the apartment to a third party, the other party to the right to claim sale under Article 48 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act

[2] In a case where the whole building in a single complex is reconstructed en bloc, whether the rebuilding resolution under the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act should be made for each building (affirmative), and whether the right to demand sale can be exercised for the sectional owner who did not agree with the rebuilding resolution in a case where only some of the buildings among several buildings meet the requirements for rebuilding resolution (affirmative)

[1] Even if the apartment seller has already sold the apartment owned by the seller to a third party and has its ownership only until the liquidation of part of the remaining balance is completed, so long as the registration of preservation of ownership remains in the name of the seller, the seller shall be deemed a legitimate owner who has the right to dispose of the apartment, so long as the right to claim sale under Article 48 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act remains in the name of the seller, the seller shall exercise the right to claim sale under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate or the Social Order or the principle of good faith, and even if the seller is liable for damages due to the impossibility of the buyer's performance of the duty to claim sale registration, the exercise of the right to claim sale cannot be deemed as contrary

[2] Where several buildings exist in a single complex and the site intends to reconstruct all buildings in the complex as a whole, which belong to the co-ownership of all the building owners, a resolution for reconstruction is required by the four-fifths or more of the sectional owners in each building. In such a case, if the building does not meet the requirements for a resolution for reconstruction in part of the building but meets the requirements for a resolution for reconstruction in the remaining building, a legitimate resolution for reconstruction has been adopted. Thus, the right to demand sale can be exercised against the sectional owners who did not agree with the resolution for reconstruction among the sectional owners of the remaining buildings

[1] Article 48 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, Articles 2, 103, and 186 of the Civil Act, Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate / [2] Articles 47 and 48 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 97Da41868 delivered on March 13, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1022), Supreme Court Decision 98Da20608 delivered on October 2, 1998, Supreme Court Decision 99Du7210 delivered on February 11, 200 (Gong200Sang, 711)

Taepyeong-dong 2 reconstruction Housing Association

Korea National Housing Corporation (Attorney Park Jae-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 99Na470 delivered on October 7, 1999

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Even if the defendant sells an apartment owned by the defendant to a third party and holds its ownership until the liquidation of part of the remaining price is completed, so long as his ownership preservation remains in the name of the defendant, the defendant is the legitimate owner who has the right to dispose of the apartment, and the right to demand sale under Article 48 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") shall be exercised to the owner on the registry with the right to disposal under the external law. Thus, it is legitimate for the plaintiff to exercise the right to demand sale by making the defendant as the other party in this case. Accordingly, even if the defendant is liable for damages due to the failure to perform the obligation to transfer ownership to the buyer, the exercise of the right to demand sale cannot be said to be contrary to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate or the social order,

Under Articles 47 and 48 of the Act, in certain cases, the sectional owners may remove the buildings in the relation of sectional ownership by a majority of 4/5 or more of sectional owners and use their site as the site of a new building which is the object of sectional ownership. The sectional owners who approved the rebuilding resolution may request the sectional owners who do not participate in the rebuilding to sell the sectional ownership and right to use the site. This is intended to facilitate the reconstruction of the whole building by restricting the free disposal of sectional ownership in accordance with the principle of majority, on the basis of the fact that the building is physically indivisible in a case where reconstruction is needed for several sectional owners who do not participate in the rebuilding. Thus, in a case where there are several buildings in one aggregate and the site belongs to the co-ownership of all the buildings in the aggregate, a resolution for reconstruction by a majority of 4/5 or more of sectional owners is required for each building (Supreme Court Decision 97Da41868 Decided March 13, 1998), and that the remainder of rebuilding resolution can be seen to have not satisfied the requirements of rebuilding resolution.

In accordance with the record, the land of this case where 21 apartment buildings, 1 commercial buildings, and 1 kindergarten Dong are constructed are owned by the Plaintiff’s members and the Defendant except for the land of kindergarten building. The rebuilding agreement rate of 00 ○○ apartment building in which the Defendant’s respective apartment buildings belong and 97% of the rebuilding agreement rate and 96% of the rebuilding agreement rate. Thus, even if the building and kindergarten building fail to meet the resolution requirements necessary for reconstruction, the exercise of the right to demand sale against the Defendant as to 00 ○○dong and △△△△dong is legitimate.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below which accepted the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the exercise of the plaintiff's right to demand sale against the defendant of the plaintiff union is legitimate is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles

All of the arguments in the grounds of appeal are rejected.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)