The validity of the act of management and disposal by the redevelopment association on the site and constructed facilities without a resolution of its members' general meeting (negative)

Article 47 of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 5116 of Dec. 29, 1995) provides that a housing site and constructed facility shall be disposed of or managed by a management and disposal plan. Meanwhile, Article 23(3)7 of the same Act provides that a management and disposal plan shall undergo a resolution of a general meeting. In light of the purport of each provision, where a redevelopment association disposes of or manages a housing site or constructed facility without a resolution of a general meeting of partners, such plan shall not be effective.

Articles 23(3)7 and 47 of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 5116 of Dec. 29, 1995) (see Articles 18(1)9 and 34(10) of the current Urban Redevelopment Act)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and five others (Attorney Song Man-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellant] Housing Improvement Development Cooperatives (Attorney Jin-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 94Na35274 delivered on May 19, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs' attorney.

Article 47 of the Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 5116 of Dec. 29, 1995; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that a site and constructed facilities shall be disposed of or managed by a management and disposal plan. Meanwhile, Article 23 (3) 7 of the Act provides that a management and disposal plan shall undergo a resolution of a general meeting. In light of the purport of each of the above provisions, in a case where a redevelopment association disposes of or manages a site or constructed facilities without a resolution of a general meeting of partners, it shall be null and void.

However, according to the records, Nonparty 1, the acting director of the defendant association, did not follow the management and disposition plan that passed a resolution of the general meeting of association members, and concluded the contract of this case with the defendant association with the right to use the land of this case, which was acquired by the defendant association with the plaintiff 1, the deceased non-party 2 and the plaintiff 2, and at the same time, to remove the fences installed on the ground. Thus, the contract of this case

Although the reasoning of the judgment below is not appropriate, the conclusion of the court below that the contract of this case was not effective because it did not undergo a resolution at a general meeting of partners is justifiable, and therefore, the argument cannot be

2. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)