[1] Whether the authorization of the competent market, etc. under Article 44(1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act has an internal judicial relation between the housing association and its members or association members (negative)

[2] The method of expressing consent to the rebuilding resolution

[3] The case holding that it is reasonable to view that a non-member who owns a house within the project district of a reconstruction association has expressed his/her intent to consent to the rebuilding resolution, where he/she requests in writing with the members to convene an extraordinary general meeting

[1] According to the provisions of Article 44 (1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, when a housing association is to be organized to build its members' housing, it shall obtain authorization from the competent Mayor, etc., and when it is intended to change the contents of authorization or dissolve the housing association, it shall also obtain authorization. Here, the act of authorization from the competent Mayor, etc. is a supplementary act to complete the legal effect by supplementing the basic act subject to the authorization. It does not affect internal judicial relations between the housing association and the association members, or between the association association and the association members, as a result of establishing the housing association without obtaining the authorization of establishment under the provisions of this Act. Thus, even if the association is not subject to the Housing Construction Promotion Act even if the association did not obtain the authorization of establishment under the regulations or the articles of association, it shall not change the substance of the association's organization. Thus, the association can exercise its rights to the association regardless of whether the association members' qualification is authorized.

[2] Until the approval of the housing construction project plan is granted, a person who owns a house within the project district of a reconstruction association may obtain the status of a member by consenting to the rebuilding resolution, and unless otherwise stipulated in the association agreement or the articles of association, the expression of such consent is not necessarily required to be made in accordance with the specific procedure and method, and it is sufficient that there is an act or appearance to clearly express the intent of the consent.

[3] The case holding that it is reasonable to view that a non-member who owns a house within the project district of a reconstruction association has expressed his/her intent to consent to the rebuilding resolution, where he/she requests in writing with the members to convene an extraordinary general meeting

[1] Article 44 (1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act / [2] Article 44-3 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act / [3] Article 105 of the Civil Act, Article 44-3 of

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu7338 delivered on December 12, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 412), Supreme Court Decision 99Du1854 delivered on September 5, 200 (Gong200Ha, 2108)

Domine Reconstruction Association (Attorney Cho Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Other 1 and 139 others

Seoul District Court Order 2001Ma30 dated Dec. 27, 2001

The special appeal is dismissed.

According to the records, the other party requested the non-party 1, the representative of the association, as a special appellant of the reconstruction association, to convene an extraordinary general meeting of the association members for the purpose of a meeting on July 4, 2001 and on two occasions on July 25, 201, and on two occasions, the appointment of executive officers of the association, etc. However, the non-party 1 refused to convene such meeting. Thus, the court below approved the convocation of an extraordinary general meeting of this case for the purpose of a meeting on December 27, 2001.

According to the provisions of Article 44 (1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, when a housing association is formed to build its members' housing, authorization from the competent Mayor, etc. shall be obtained, and when it is intended to change the contents of authorization or dissolve the housing association, authorization from the competent Mayor, etc. In this context, authorization from the competent market, etc. is a supplementary act to complete the legal effect by supplementing the basic act subject to such authorization (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu7338, Dec. 12, 1995; 9Du1854, Sept. 5, 200). It does not affect internal judicial relations between the housing association, association members, or association members in relation to the Housing Construction Promotion Act.

Therefore, as a result of establishing a housing association without obtaining authorization for establishment under the provisions of this Act, even if the association failed to be subject to the Housing Construction Promotion Act, it does not change the substance of the association as an organization. Thus, the association can exercise its rights against the association regardless of whether it is authorized or not, and as for the change of the association members, the new association member can exercise its rights as a union member regardless of whether it is authorized, even if it has not obtained authorization for change in the association members, even if it has changed without obtaining authorization for change in the association members.

On the other hand, a person who owns a house within a housing construction project district of a reconstruction association may obtain the status of a member by consent to the reconstruction resolution for long time until approval for the housing construction project plan is granted, and unless otherwise stipulated in the association agreement or the articles of association, the expression of such consent is not necessarily required to be made in accordance with a specific procedure and method, and it is sufficient that there is an act or appearance to clarify the intent of the consent.

According to the records, 34 of the other party who is a special appellant is the original owner who did not consent to re-building at the time of re-building resolution, or who acquired a house from such original owner and was not registered in the register of union members at the time of authorization for establishment. However, on July 4, 2001 and February 25, 2001, the non-member who owned a house within the project district of the reconstruction association requested the non-member 1 to convene the special meeting of union members as a proposal to amend the regulations, etc. In addition, it is naturally premised on the premise that the convocation of the request for convening the special meeting of union members is the representative of the association. If the non-member consented to the re-building resolution, the non-member automatically acquires the status of union members, thereby automatically acquiring the status of union members, and if the non-member, in writing, requested the non-member to convene the special meeting of union members, in light of the motive, circumstance, purpose, etc. of re-building resolution at the same time, it is reasonable to deem that he/she agreed to consent to re-building resolution at the same time (excluding the other party).

Therefore, the grounds for special appeal disputing the qualifications of some of the other parties cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the special appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)