The case holding that the management and disposal plan of the housing reconstruction project cannot be deemed to have violated the principle of equity among sectional owners, which provided that the association members who own a large-scale apartment in the previous form competes with the allocation of a flat apartment;

(1) The case holding that it is inevitable to change the number of apartment units and apartment units in the direction of increasing the horizontal and horizontal apartment units to be allocated to the members of the association in light of the fact that, among the resolution for reconstruction, it appears that active incentives were necessary to attract them to the reconstruction project because the necessity for reconstruction is relatively low, while the value of the assets invested in the reconstruction project is greater than that of the owners of small-scale apartment units, and that, in the inaugural general meeting distributed to the members of the association at the time of the inaugural general meeting, the floor area ratio, etc. can be changed if the basic plan for development of the apartment zone is determined and publicly notified, or that construction size can be adjusted and changed in the course of approval of the project plan, and that priority is not allocated to the members of the association in the direction of increasing the horizontal and horizontal size of the existing apartment units due to the introduction of the general duty ratio system for small-sized apartment units and the reduction of floor area ratio, and that it is unreasonable to change the number of units and apartment units to be allocated to the association members of the association.

Article 24(3)10, and Article 48 of the Act on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Han-han et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 3 and one other (Law Firm Han-han et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Intervenor 1 and 10 others (Law Firm Han-gu et al., Counsel for the intervenor-appellant)

Distribution 2 Complex Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (Attorney Kim Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Da31226, 104377 decided July 12, 2007

April 22, 2008

1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and all of the plaintiffs' lawsuits corresponding thereto are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation cost, the part pertaining to participation by the Intervenor is borne by the Intervenor, and the remainder by the Plaintiffs and the appointed parties, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's resolution on the "case of the re-building resolution and the resolution on the project plan" on the agenda item 1 of the general meeting of the inaugural general meeting of July 14, 2001, the resolution on the "case of the approval on the management and disposition plan" on the agenda item 5 at the special meeting of February 26, 2005, the resolution on the amendment of the articles of association among the agenda item 1 at the special meeting of September 24, 2005, the resolution on the "case of the amendment of the articles of association" under subparagraphs 8 and 9 of Article 47, and the resolution on the "case of the amendment of the management and disposition plan" under subparagraph 6 at the same meeting of the general meeting of September 24, 2005 is invalid

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked and the plaintiffs' claim as to that part shall be dismissed or dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry as set forth in Gap evidence 1 through 9, Gap evidence 13, 14, Eul evidence 17, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3-1 through 5, Eul evidence 5-1 through 1242, Eul evidence 6 through 22, Eul evidence 41, Eul evidence 45-1 through 104, and Eul evidence 45-1 through 104:

A. Status of the parties

(1) The defendant association shall hold an inaugural general meeting on July 14, 200 and shall hold 1,720 apartment owners of the present apartment on July 14, 201 [490 members of the existing apartment-type 25 square meters (hereinafter “25 square-type members”), 1,230 members of the 18 square-type 1,564 who consent to the reconstruction project (hereinafter “18-type 18-1,230 members”), and 102, 1,66 members of the building of this case among the sectional owners of the present building of this case and 112 members of the building of this case (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) and the building of this case (hereinafter “the commercial building of this case”) with the consent of the head of the Seocho-gu 1,564 members of the building of this case, and the head of the 30-type 1,666 members of the housing association shall enter into force under Article 38 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act (the Housing Act of this case’s No. 1630, May 29, 20, 1630).

(2) The Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs (Appointeds), the designated parties, the Intervenors, and the Intervenors assisting the Plaintiff (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) are members of the Defendant Union as the sectional owners of the 18th square apartment among the instant apartment buildings.

(b) Reconstruction resolution at its inaugural general meeting;

(1) At the inaugural general meeting of the defendant association held on July 14, 2001, the "case of a resolution for reconstruction or project plan" was presented and passed in accordance with the contents of the rebuilding resolution and project plan, which were distributed to the members in advance, as set forth in subparagraph 1. The main contents are as follows.

(a) Outline of the construction of a new building: it shall be based on the final public notice (fest), and shall be determined at the time of approval of the project

The number of building site size, welfare facilities and building size ratio (%) in the main sentence, included in the table in the main sentence, shall be approximately 133,661.30 square meters ( approximately 40,432.54 square meters) of approximately 487,79.56 square meters ( approximately 147,559.37 square meters) 14-35 square meters of 25,572 572 564, 379 260 260,7679.67 269.67

(b) Estimated cost of removal of a building or new construction: It shall be calculated by estimating the estimated project cost.

approximately KRW 143,09, KRW 373,00 of approximately 143,09, KRW 773,000 of the aggregate of construction costs and other project costs included in the main sentence. approximately KRW 526,753,735,00 of the aggregate of construction costs and other project costs

(C) Matters concerning the cost sharing under subsection (b).

In accordance with the union regulations, the expenses shall be fairly apportioned according to the current housing type, the provisional liquidation at the time of management and disposal, and the final determination of the contributions at the time of liquidation after the occupancy.

본문내 포함된 표 o 사업추진방식은 조합규약이 정하는 바에 따라 총회에서 재적조합원 과반수의 출석과 출석 조합원 과반수의 찬성으로 결정한다. o 분담금을 정하기 위한 조합원의 권리금액 산정은 아래 ‘① 현 소유 주택평형을 기준으로 분담금을 정하는 경우’와 ‘② 현 소유 토지 및 건축물을 평가하여 분담금을 정하는 경우’ 중에서 ‘관리처분계획 수립을 위한 총회’에서 조합규약이 정하는 바에 따라 재적조합원 과반수의 출석과 출석조합원 과반수의 찬성으로 확정한다. [공동주택(아파트)소유 조합원의 분담금 산정] ▷ 도급제 방식으로 사업을 추진하기로 결의한 경우의 비용분담 : ① 현 소유주택 평형을 기준으로 분담금을 정하는 경우 * 조합원 분담금 = 분양받을 아파트의 분양금액 - (당해)조합원의 권리지분 * 조합원의 권리지분 = 주택평형별 개발이익금 배분금액 × (당해)조합원 현 소유주택 평형별 평균대지면적 * 주택평형별 개발이익금 배분금액 = 개발이익금 ÷ 아파트 소유 조합원의 총 소유 대지지분 면적 * 개발이익금 = (총 분양수입금 - 기타 수입금) - (건축비 등 총 사업비) ② 현 소유 토지 및 건축물을 감정평가하여 분담금을 정하는 경우 * 조합원 분담금 = 분양받을 아파트의 분양금액 - (당해)조합원의 권리지분 * 조합원의 권리지분 = 개발이익금 × (당해)조합원의 현 소유토지 및 건축물평가액/사업구역 내 전체조합원의 현 소유토지 및 건축물총평가액 ▷ 지분제 방식으로 사업을 추진하기로 결의한 경우의 비용분담 : * 시공사선정시 시공사가 제시하는 조합원 권리지분(무상지분) 금액과 분양평형별 부담금액에 따른다. [상가 등 소유조합원의 분담금산정] ▷ 상가 구분소유권자의 분담금 산정은 별도의 관리처분계획에 따른다. (다만, 상가조합원들에게 배부된 동의서에는, 이 부분이 “상가 소유조합원과의 협의에 의하여 건축계획을 수립하고, 비용을 산출한 후 조합과 상가 소유 조합원이 별도로 합의하는 비용분담기준에 따라 비용을 분담하기로 하며, 관리처분계획 수립시 비용분담금액을 최종확정한다.”고 되어 있음)

o The estimated amount of charges for each type of occupancy of the newly-built multi-family housing;

(Determination at the time of provisional liquidation or liquidation at the time of disposition for management)

The (unit: 18,108 (Unit: 18,108) Equity of Site Ownership: 24.705 square meters: Equity of Site Ownership: 320,60: 320 square meters: 212,1608,442 (Refund) -232,717 (Refund) - 320,310-292 (Refund) -124,567 (Refund) 423,60,602, 277 (Refund) -21, 277 (Refund) - 421, 277 (Refund) - 428, 277 (Refund) - 421, 427, 277 (Refund) - 538, 204, 278 (Refund) - 438, 2538, 297 (Refund) 47, 25384, 253638 (36) 4,467) 2547

(d) Matters concerning the reversion of divided ownership of a newly constructed building: according to Chapter VII (Management Disposition) of the Regulations of the Association.

The sale-type apartment house included in the main sentence: The sale-type decision shall be based on the application for parcelling-out by the association members for parcelling-out, and if there are competition, priority shall be given to the association members with larger ownership (previous house), the deliberation-type choice in the case of equal ownership and the determination of number of houses shall be sold in the order of the amount of credit (amount). The sale-type decision shall be based on the application for parcelling-out, where there are competition, priority shall be given to the association members of the same floor in the previous building, where there are competition, priority shall be given to the appraisal amount, and where there are the same floor, priority shall be given to the association members with higher appraisal amount, and where there are the same height, the appraisal amount shall be given: Provided, That the sale-type and number of houses shall be based on the size and number of houses determined by the division according to the plan for parcelling-out of commercial buildings: The unit and welfare facilities, such as the remaining apartment and commercial building, shall be sold in lots to the association members, and the sale amount shall be appropriated first for project expenses.

(2) In the project plan (draft) distributed along with the resolution of reconstruction at the above inaugural general meeting and the written consent of the project plan, among the estimated amount of KRW 143 billion for construction costs, value-added tax on construction costs is included in the items of value-added tax on construction costs (25.7 square meters for exclusive use) more than 18.4 billion for construction costs (=147,59.37 square meters x 48% x 48% x 600 x 10%).

(3) On the agenda No. 2 of the above inaugural general meeting, the establishment of the bylaws of the association was proposed and resolved. In Chapter VII of the above rules of the association, the owner of welfare facilities, such as commercial buildings, are provided with welfare facilities to be newly built, but if he does not install welfare facilities, he/she may be provided with a house (Article 40 Subparag. 9). In addition, as an agenda No. 7, there was a resolution to determine the method of project promotion, the selection of the contractor, and the conclusion of the contract.

(4) Until June 27, 2003, the Defendant Union received a written resolution from the total 1,666 owners of the instant apartment and commercial building with the contents of the said rebuilding resolution at its inaugural general meeting (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “first rebuilding resolution”) from the head of Seocho-gu Seoul on June 27, 2003 after obtaining authorization for the establishment of the reconstruction association from the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

(c) Presenting a small-sized mandatory ratio system and approval of a project implementation plan;

On September 5, 2003, the Government's regulatory proposal (small-type mandatory ratio system) under which the total number of households shall be 60% or more of the total number of reconstruction apartment units in the overconcentration control zone of Seoul, including Seoul, shall be 85 square meters or less (25.7 square meters). On November 24, 2004, the floor area ratio of the "west-si and distribution height zone" in which the apartment units of this case are included shall be 230% final and conclusive on November 24, 204. In order to comply with such regulation, the Defendant Cooperative conducted a survey on possible measures for the square and household units of the new building, based on the results, conducted 26 square and 34 square and 34 square and square and 48 square and 48 square and 34 square and square and 44 square and 14 square and 444 square and 130 square and 214 square and 214 square and 24 square and square and household units shall be modified.

(d) Resolution on the receipt of applications for parcelling-out and approval of a management and disposal plan at an extraordinary general meeting of February 26, 2005;

(1) The Defendant Union received the application for parcelling-out from individual members from January 24, 2005 to February 23, 2005, the project implementation authorization for the above project, as follows, and, in the event of competition in parcelling-out, as a result of the first reconstruction resolution, the Defendant Union allocated a flat punishment to the members with a large apartment size, in accordance with the first reconstruction resolution, who agreed to give a right of equal choice to the former apartment size, and as a result, all of 25 square members applied for the first rank. While 18 square members applied for the first rank among 44 square applicants, 366, 173, 172 square applicants among 52 square applicants, and 79 square applicants among 62 square applicants were unable to be allocated a flat punishment they applied for.

본문내 포함된 표 동 수 신축 아파트 평형 26평형 34평형 44평형 52평형 62평형 72평형 81평형 합계 신축세대수 489 978 130 210 231 224 182 2,444 1순위 신청 18평형 조합원 3 347 439 174 153 73 26 1,215 25평형 조합원 0 6 57 210(1명 변경) 157 34 23 486 경합 여부 미달 미달 경합 경합 경합 미달 미달 ？ 18평형 조합원 1순위 배정 3 347 73 1 74 73 26 597 2~5순위 배정 ？ ？ 366 173 79 ？ ？ 618

(2) At the special meeting of the Defendant Union held on February 26, 2005 (hereinafter “the first special meeting”), some of the 18-type union members’ opposition to the foregoing new building is continued on the ground that it is excessively unfavorable to the 18-type union members who have no priority in ordinary selection, and the above agenda was resolved with the consent of 1,089 from among the 1,720 union members, among the 1,551 union members present at the 1,51 union members. The main contents are as follows.

(A) Outline of the project plan (Article 2)

New apartment type and number of households

The number of the total floor space and the size of the building site area (land size) and the number of the total floor space (%) total floor space (%) in the main sentence, and the number of the number of total floor space (%) total floor space (%) of 26 square-type 34 square-type 44 square-type 52 square-type 62 square-type 62 square-type 72 square-type 81 square-type 133,349, 349.05, 535, 231.72 underground3 square-type 81, 22-32 square-type 489, 27, 2978; 2310 22,444.95

(b) EWITITITALS. - The estimated amount of the cost of the rearrangement project (Article V(2))

Totaling KRW 790,976,923,00 (=construction cost of KRW 535,349,932,00 for construction cost + Survey and measurement cost, design cost, supervision cost, construction supervision cost of KRW 12,787,55,00 for construction supervision + KRW 146,065,930,00 for compensation + Management expense of KRW 4,870,000 for incidental expenses + Incidental expenses of KRW 81,903,506,000 for incidental expenses + KRW 10,000 for reserve funds of KRW 10,00,000 for 0,000 for 0,000 for miscellaneous expenses)

(C) Calculation of cooperative members' contributions (Article 8)

(unit:,000 won)

Members of the cooperative, having an estimated average of 18 square meters included in the main sentence of paragraph 1,

(D) Sale of apartment units (Article 6(1))

o Members' standards for parcelling-out: In principle, one house shall be supplied to one member of the housing units to be newly built according to the desired application for parcelling-out: Provided, That two or more houses shall be supplied if two or more houses are owned: Provided, That an area determined and publicly notified by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, such as an area where speculation is likely to be located,

The method of balanced decision for the members who have filed an application for parcelling-out: ① The difference (area and previous value) between the two types shall be deemed nonexistent, and it shall be classified into 18 square and 25 square. ② The allocation of a flat by the application for parcelling-out shall take precedence, and the reconstruction resolution shall be followed in the case of competition by the application for parcelling-out, and the method of balanced allocation shall be allocated by the computer lottery of the financial settlement center, etc. ③ The members who have fallen at the first level shall be allocated when there is a remaining household in the ordinary class applied for the second level, and if there is competition, the method of balanced decision under the second subparagraph shall be followed. ② If there is no remaining household in the second order or has been dismissed, the participation in the allocation of the next rank and the provisions under this subparagraph shall be applied. ④ If there is no competition as a result of the application for parcelling-out in each square category, the remaining household shall be sold in preference to the members and sold in general.

(e) Sale of commercial buildings (Article 6(2))

(1) Official duty costs: In principle, the method determined by an agreement between member of a commercial building and an association shall be implemented by the independent settlement system.

(2) Dongnam Commercial Complex: In principle, it shall be purchased at a price determined by the court in accordance with the result of a lawsuit seeking sale, but may follow the resolution for reconstruction and the project plan if it is intended to consent to the method of independent settlement, such as the main commercial building.

(3) Housing supply to commercial building partners.

Where a member of a commercial building renounces the sale of a newly-built house and wishes to sell it to a newly-built house, the association and the member of the commercial building recognized by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall apply the amount equivalent to the share of the right per apartment, to the usual area of the ownership of the commercial building in accordance with the agreement between the association and the member of the association, and shall sell the remaining house after selling it to the member of the commercial building who falls under the ratio prescribed by the articles of association pursuant to Article 52 (2)

E. Resolution on the amendment of the management and disposal plan and the amendment of the articles of association at the extraordinary general meeting of September 24, 2005

(1) From the extraordinary general meeting of the Defendant Union held on September 24, 2005 (hereinafter “the second extraordinary meeting”), the “case of the modification of the management and disposition plan” was proposed as the item No. 6, and the above agenda was resolved with the consent of 945 in the presence of 1,831 members among 1,831 members, and 1,033 members of the entire association. The main contents are as follows.

(A) Outline of the project plan (Article 2)

The number of new apartment units and households: The same shall be the same as the management and disposal plan resolved at the first special meeting.

(B) Estimated amounts of the rearrangement project cost (Article 5)

Total amount of KRW 779,00,000 for construction cost of KRW 551,195,615,000 for construction cost of KRW 12,663,426,00 for design and supervision + KRW 130,116,620,00 for compensation + KRW 2,920,000 for management expenses + incidental expenses of KRW 72,104,339,00 for incidental expenses + KRW 10,000 for reserve funds of KRW 10,00,000,000 for expenses for design and supervision)

(C) Members' contributions (Article 10)

(unit:,000 won)

Members of the cooperative, having an estimated average of 18 square meters in the body of entry into force:

(D) Sale of apartment buildings (Article VII(1))

Standard for parcelling-out of cooperative members and method of deliberation on the applicants for parcelling-out;

It is the same as the management and disposition plan resolved at the first special meeting.

(e) Sale of commercial buildings (Article 7(2))

(1) Sale of a commercial building shall be made by an independent settlement system under an agreement between members of the commercial building.

* An independent settlement system

The amount of the commercial land increased by the shares of the former member's ownership among the main district-centered areas based on the master plan for the distribution district, shall be borne by the member of the commercial building, and the representative organization of the commercial building shall be the business entity and shall directly take charge of the affairs concerning the construction and sale of the new commercial price.

(b) The amount of repayment for the project expenses (including purchase added taxes and sales added taxes), etc., including land purchase expenses and construction expenses for the increased commercial land shall be the revenue of commercial facility owners when profits accrue in comparison with sales revenue, etc.

When a loss occurs due to a cause, the members of the commercial building shall be jointly and severally liable for the loss according to the previous ratio of shares.

(2) Housing sale for commercial building members;

In principle, the appurtenant and welfare facilities shall be supplied to the owner of the ancillary and welfare facilities, but where only the member who renounced a commercial building among the members of the commercial building recognized by relevant statutes and applied for the sale of an apartment house is higher than the value calculated by multiplying the value of the existing appurtenant and welfare facilities by the estimated value of the minimum sale unit (26 square) among the housing units to be sold, one house may be sold among the remaining households remaining after the members of the commercial building owned by the apartment ownership association who purchased the apartment house.

(2) In addition, in the above second special meeting, the amendment of the articles of association was proposed as an agenda No. 1 and passed with the consent of 944. The relevant contents of this case are as follows.

The articles of association of the Association

Article 47 (Standards for Management and Disposal Plans): A management and Disposal Plans for the properties owned by the partners referred to in Article 48 (7) of the Urban Improvement Act shall be in accordance with the following methods and standards: Provided, That where the Ordinance of Seoul Special Metropolitan City or the Urban Improvement Act prescribes otherwise within the scope of the following subparagraphs, such plan shall apply, and where the same does not apply, the standards shall be determined separately by the General Meeting of Management and Disposal with the consent of the partners, and shall

8. The supply of housing not exceeding two houses shall be the same household or the same person that has been designated as an overheated speculation district.

9. An appurtenant or welfare facility (including appurtenant land) shall be supplied to the owner of the appurtenant or welfare facility, and where the value of the existing appurtenant or welfare facility is higher than the estimated value of the unit unit among the housing units to be sold and the estimated value of the minimum unit among the housing units to be sold is higher than 18/100 by the members who given up a commercial building among the commercial building members recognized by related statutes, one house may be supplied to the owner of the appurtenant or welfare facility, among the remaining households remaining after supplying it to the housing association members. In such cases, the allotment of the housing association members

(f) Authorization, announcement, etc. of a management and disposal plan

As above, the Defendant Union applied for authorization to the Seocho-gu Office on the management and disposal plan with which it obtained a resolution of its members. On October 21, 2005, the head of Seocho-gu Office approved the amendment of the above management and disposal plan on the condition that "the problem of supply of housing to the members of the upper family association shall be conducted in accordance with the authoritative interpretation of superior agencies, and prompt implementation in accordance with the contents of the judgment at the time of final judgment of the court,"

Defendant Union, from 1,242 (67.75%) out of 1,833 members (in addition to two members after the second special meeting) until April 19, 2006, prepared a written consent on the amendment of the above articles of association from 1,242 (67.75%) and obtained authorization for the amendment of the articles of association from the head of Seocho-gu.

(g) Submission of written consent to the reconstruction of commercial areas;

Around June 2006, the Defendant Union received written consent from only the sectional owners of welfare facilities among the apartment complexes of this case to re-building resolution and project plan in accordance with the contents of the management and disposal plan decided at the second special meeting. By June 19, 2006, the Defendant Union obtained written consent of 89.66% (104 out of 116 persons) of the sectional owners of the whole welfare facilities and 81.57% of voting rights (5,313.84mm2 of the total building size 6,514.39m2 of the total building area) by June 19, 2006 (hereinafter “the second re-building resolution”). The details of the written consent of the re-building resolution and project plan are as follows.

(1) Design outline of a new building: Criteria for the extraordinary general meeting of September 24, 2005

The total floor area of a building site in the main sentence and the total floor area of a building size in the building site in the main sentence shall be the 18,910-44 square meters (5,720.40 square meters) 18,910-44 square meters (5,720.40 square meters) 3,698.57 square meters (1,118.81 square meters) of underground 2-5 stories from 2-5 stories to 245.99% 248.07% of the 245.07% of the 245.07% of the 248.07% of the 248.07% of the 2nd-5 stories underground

(2) Estimated amount of expenses for removal of buildings and new construction: Criteria for the extraordinary general meeting on September 24, 2005

(3) Matters concerning the cost-sharing under subsection (2) of this section: The cost-sharing for the promotion of the project shall be apportioned equally, the disposal and disposal shall be completed at the time of the disposal and disposal, and the final determination of the charge at the time of the liquidation after occupancy

The method of promoting the business in the main sentence shall be an independent separation method, and the criteria for calculating the contribution of the cooperative members shall be as follows in accordance with the regulations on the management of commercial buildings separately determined by the member of commercial buildings: [Methods for calculating the contribution of the cooperative members who own incidental and welfare facilities, such as shopping districts] * the amount of the contribution of the cooperative members * the amount of the rights of the cooperative members - total revenue of the commercial buildings, etc. - the amount of the rights of the cooperative members - the amount of the rights of the association members / the amount of the association's total revenue - the amount of the total appraised value of the land and building after the completion of the business 】 the amount of 100 rights * the amount of shares ownership of each cooperative / the estimated

(d) Reversion of sectional ownership of a newly constructed building: in accordance with the management and disposal plan of the commercial building.

In the case of the sale of apartment buildings in units and welfare facilities in units: In principle, the ownership area of the previous building and the location of each floor shall be sold in units, and the difference between the value of the commercial buildings in units and the previous value shall be settled in the amount calculated by calculating the appraisal value appraised by at least two appraisal institutions under the Act on Publication of Land Prices and Evaluation of Land, etc..: The members of the association who applied for the sale in units shall preferentially allocate the floors and lakes they wish to apply for the sale in units, and where there is competition, the same floor as the existing building price and the same location person shall be given priority to the members of the association who are higher than the average appraisal value based on the appraisal value of the building and the land at the previous market price. Where the members of the association desire to sell apartment buildings in units and welfare facilities, such as the commercial building: Where the previous value of the association members of the association is higher than the amount calculated by multiplying the estimated value of the building in units by the size of the unit among the housing in units, the remaining housing unit shall be allocated to the members of the building in units in units and the sales zone.

(h) Conclusion of sales contracts;

The 1,719 members of the apartment association of the defendant association and 115 members of the commercial building (33 members of the building have waived the commercial building and applied for the purchase of apartment units), and the 1,752 members of the whole association (95.5% of the 1,835 members of the apartment association (95.5% of the total members) entered into an application for parcelling-out, and all applicants for parcelling-out.

2. Determination as to the claim for nullification of rebuilding resolution

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

(A) Since the first rebuilding agreement of the Defendant Union alone cannot at all predict the matters concerning the cost-sharing with respect to the removal of the building and the construction of the new building in relation to the instant commercial building, the resolution on the reconstruction resolution and the construction of the business plan at the inaugural general meeting on July 14, 201 and the second rebuilding resolution are null and void in violation of Article 47(3) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”).

(B) In the site of the instant apartment reconstruction project, commercial buildings are removed and newly constructed apartment on the site because the site of the instant apartment reconstruction project includes the site of the commercial building. In the event that the resolution for reconstruction of the instant apartment building owners becomes null and void, the instant apartment reconstruction resolution constitutes a case where the contents of reconstruction stipulated in the proviso of Article 47(1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act have a special effect on the sectional owners of other buildings within the complex, but the consent of the sectional owners is not obtained. Thus, the reconstruction resolution on the instant apartment portion

(2) The defendant union's assertion

The Defendant Union set the outline of the construction of the new building, the ownership of sectional ownership, and the sharing of expenses by the project plan, etc. of the reconstruction association, as far as possible, in the initial stage of reconstruction, and obtained the consent of the members of the commercial building to the implementation of the independent settlement system. Since the instant management and disposal plan adopted a resolution to implement the reconstruction project of the commercial building part by the independent settlement system in the instant management and disposal plan, under the above circumstances, the rebuilding resolution cannot be deemed null and void even if the members of the commercial building did not set the bearing of expenses of the commercial building in the

(b) Scope of judgment of party members;

In the case of the reconstruction of several buildings in one aggregate within a single complex, if the requirements for the reconstruction resolution are not met in some Dongs, but if the rest of buildings meet the requirements for the reconstruction resolution, it shall be deemed that there was a legitimate reconstruction resolution as to the rest (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da55455, Jun. 24, 2005). Even if the reconstruction resolution on the part of the commercial building of this case is null and void, it shall be deemed that the rebuilding resolution has the effect as the consent of the sectional owner of another building in the complex which is specially affected by the reconstruction of the apartment part of this case under the proviso of Article 47 (1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, and since the judgment of the first instance which dismissed the lawsuit seeking the confirmation of invalidity of the resolution on the part of the apartment part of the "case of the rebuilding resolution and the project plan resolution" did not appeal by the plaintiffs, it shall be decided only in the trial

(c) The validity of a resolution on the portion of commercial buildings among the resolution on the first reconstruction;

(1) According to Article 47 (3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, when a resolution for reconstruction is adopted, matters concerning the estimated amount and apportionment of expenses incurred in the removal of the building and construction of the new building shall be determined. The matters concerning the estimated amount and apportionment of the rebuilding expenses shall be the basis for the sectional owners to choose whether the sectional owners will participate in the reconstruction while paying a reasonable cost, whether the sectional owners will sell the sectional ownership, etc. in accordance with the market price and not participate in the reconstruction (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da1952, 19569, Feb. 23, 2006).

(2) According to the facts found in the above 1.1. Determination, for the portion of the first reconstruction resolution, only "the calculation of contributions shall be in accordance with a separate management and disposal plan," and the defendant association's union's bylaws only provide that "the owner of welfare facilities, such as a virtual price, shall be provided with the welfare facilities to be newly built, but a house may be supplied if he does not install welfare facilities," and there is no standard for the cost sharing for welfare facilities, such as commercial buildings, and the criteria for the calculation of contributions by the members of the commercial building, among the first reconstruction resolution, provide that the criteria for the calculation of contributions by the members of the commercial building shall be agreed separately at the stage of the execution of reconstruction. Thus, the resolution on the portion of the commercial building shall be null

(d) A second reconstruction resolution on the commercial area;

(1) The defendant union's assertion

The defendant union asserts that even if the first reconstruction resolution on the commercial and commercial areas is null and void, the defect was cured since there was a valid reconstruction resolution among the members of the commercial and commercial buildings around June 19, 2006.

(2) Determination:

The issue of whether there was a valid rebuilding resolution is not necessarily limited to the first resolution at the meeting of the management body. Even though the consent person at the first meeting of the management body failed to meet the quorum necessary for rebuilding, the sectional owners shall thereafter submit a written consent to the rebuilding in the course of the rebuilding promotion by separately submitting the written consent to that effect. If the quorum for the rebuilding resolution is required, it can be deemed that the rebuilding resolution separate from the resolution at the meeting of the management body is valid (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da5455, Jun. 24, 2005, etc.).

A dispute over the validity of the portion of the first reconstruction resolution has been resolved on the management and disposal plan with respect to the portion of the commercial building at the first and second special meeting of the company, and the defendant union has determined on June 19, 2006 about the expenses to be borne and the matters to be reverted to the sectional ownership. Accordingly, it is sufficient to establish a new re-building resolution for the portion of the commercial building by the above written resolution (the second re-building resolution) [Article 16(2) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas only for the members of the company (amended by Act No. 8785, Dec. 21, 2007)], and 81.57% of the total voting rights (5,313.84mm2 of the total building area).

E. Descriptions of the resolution on the rebuilding of the commercial building section

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs argued that the second reconstruction resolution on the commercial building portion of this case provides "the outline of the design of the new building" and "the estimated amount of expenses for removal and new construction of the building" as to the portion of the commercial building which was not entirely stipulated at the time of the first reconstruction resolution, and that the "matters concerning the cost-bearing ratio" are not only the members of the apartment association but also the members of the commercial building, but also the expenses for the implementation of the authorization and permission, etc. to be borne by the members of the commercial building are included in the expenses for the apartment reconstruction project, and that the compensation for losses to be borne by the members of the commercial building are included in the expenses for the housing reconstruction project, and that the portion which is not consistent with the equity even though it shall be forfeited according to the ratio of the area of each building site at the time of the second reconstruction resolution, unlike the first reconstruction resolution, it reduces profits from the general apartment sale, but it is not only the members of the apartment association who own profits from the sale of the commercial building abandoned by the members of the commercial building, but also the consent of at least four percent of the rebuilding resolution is null and void.

(2) Determination:

In the case of rebuilding a number of condominium buildings in one aggregate housing complex, if they fail to meet the requirements for rebuilding resolution in some Dongs, but they meet the requirements for rebuilding resolution in the remaining Dongs, it shall be deemed that there has been legitimate rebuilding resolution for the remaining Dongs (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da55455, Jun. 24, 2005). Even if a new rebuilding resolution was adopted on a part of a Dong which does not meet the requirements for rebuilding resolution, the remaining sectional owners or all members of that building does not require a resolution on a new rebuilding resolution, unless the new rebuilding resolution was affected by a new rebuilding resolution that has been effective in the remaining Dong to the extent that it cannot be recognized as identical to social norms.

Therefore, I will examine whether the first resolution was modified to the extent that the identity is not recognized by the second reconstruction resolution.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the rebuilding resolution on the apartment portion has been modified to the extent that it is not possible to recognize the identity of the common sense due to the outline of the design of the new building, the estimated expenses incurred in the removal of the building and construction of the new building among the second rebuilding resolution, the estimated expenses incurred in the removal of the building and the sharing of the expenses therefor, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Furthermore, in the second reconstruction resolution, the "matters on the allotment of sectional ownership of a new building" provides that if a member of the association who owns an appurtenant or welfare facility, such as a commercial building, gives up a commercial building and wishes to purchase an apartment house, only one house can be sold to the association member and only one house can be sold to the remaining household if he wishes to purchase the apartment house. This is different from the contents of Article 40 subparagraph 9 of the first reconstruction resolution and the first reconstruction resolution that allows the association member to acquire a house if he does not build welfare facilities such as a commercial building, and the first reconstruction resolution that allows the association member to purchase the apartment house and sell the apartment house only to the remaining household if he wishes to sell the apartment house. However, it is difficult to say that the second reconstruction resolution citing the second reconstruction resolution sees that the apartment house can be sold to the association members by means of sale and purchase, and it is difficult to view that the second reconstruction plan citing the second reconstruction resolution sees that the apartment house can substantially be sold to the association members, and it is difficult to see that it can be sold to the association members's.

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, the resolution on the portion of commercial buildings among the first rebuilding resolution is null and void, but the second rebuilding resolution is valid thereafter. Even if the original rebuilding resolution is null and void, seeking confirmation of invalidity of the previous resolution is merely seeking confirmation of legal relations or legal relationship in the past, and it cannot be deemed unlawful as it lacks requirements for protection of rights (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da35754 delivered on December 22, 1998).

3. Determination on the application to nullify the approval of the management and disposal plan and the amendment resolution

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that the management and disposal plan resolved at the first and second extraordinary meetings (hereinafter referred to as the "management and disposal plan of this case") has a significant increase in the total estimated cost of the reconstruction project compared to the total estimated cost of the first reconstruction resolution, and the shares of the association members also increased, and the ownership of divided ownership can not be recognized as identical to the first reconstruction resolution, since the alteration of the new building or the alteration thereto substantially changes in the ownership of divided ownership, and therefore the same cannot be recognized as identical to the first reconstruction resolution of this case. Thus, regardless of its name, each resolution of this case can be asserted as a civil lawsuit, such as seeking confirmation of invalidity of the reconstruction resolution as it constitutes a resolution or alteration resolution, regardless of its name

(A) procedural defect

The number of votes necessary for the modification of a rebuilding resolution or a rebuilding resolution has not been provided (at least four-fifths of all the members).

(B) Contents defect

① The instant management and disposal plan was implemented in such a way that the ordinary and large types of units of new buildings increase in the number of small and large types of units, and the number of units of apartment units of 40 to 60 square units, which is a serious type of apartment units. As a result, the 18 ordinary class members, who do not have priority in the selection of ordinary types of units, are relatively deprived of opportunities for members to be allocated the above-level ordinary type of units, compared to those of 25 ordinary class members, and was practically forced to allocate small or large types of units of units who do not want to be allocated. This is substantially contrary to the equity among sectional owners.

(2) The instant management and disposal plan provides that value-added tax on the cost of housing construction services for housing more than the scale of national housing shall be allocated to the members who were allocated a sentence below the size of national housing subject to value-added tax exemption in proportion to the value of rights, thereby ensuring equity.

③ The instant management and disposal plan reduces the interests of the members of the apartment association due to the general sale of apartment buildings by allowing the members of the commercial building to renounce the commercial building and obtain the sale of apartment buildings, while the profit gained from the general sale of abandoned commercial buildings is against the principle of equity by holding only the members of the commercial building on the ground of an independent settlement system

(2) The defense prior to the merits of the Defendant Union

The defendant association can file a dispute as an administrative disposition only through an appeal litigation, and it is unlawful to seek confirmation of invalidity of the resolution that reaches the management and disposition plan without seeking its revocation through an appeal litigation and seek it as a civil litigation.

Unlike the above, the defendant union asserts that the contents of the management and disposal plan of this case are substantially identical to the first reconstruction resolution, and therefore, only the quorum stipulated in the articles of association is required, and the contents of the plan are valid as being not contrary to the equity.

(b) Litigation concerning approval of a management and disposal plan and resolution on amendment thereof;

A reconstruction improvement project association under the Urban Improvement Act is a special administrative entity that has been granted special purpose in relation to its members and is in a relationship with rights and obligations under public law to the extent that it can be seen that it is engaged in specific public affairs which are its existence purpose under the supervision of the State (see, e.g., Articles 61, 38, 75, 77, and 84 of the Urban Improvement Act). A management and disposal plan is an administrative disposition that has a direct legal effect on members who are landowners of land or buildings (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du633, Dec. 10, 2002).

The above management and disposal plan as an administrative disposition is established after the rebuilding project association prepares a management and disposal plan(s) and passes a resolution of a general meeting of association members under the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and the articles of incorporation (Article 24(3)10 of the Urban Improvement Act) and becomes final and publicly announced through the authorization of the administrative agency (Article 24(3)10 of the Urban Improvement Act). Thus, the fact that the defendant association proposed a management and disposal plan(s) as an agenda item and received a resolution of the general meeting of association members and publicly notified by the head of Seocho-gu with the approval of the management and disposal plan(s) from the head of Seocho-gu as mentioned above is clear in the records.

As can be seen, in a case where there is a dispute over a management and disposition plan, which has been determined and announced by the resolution of the general meeting of partners, which has been completed by the authorization, the contents of the management and disposition plan may be claimed against the reconstruction project association as a violation of Article 48 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, by asserting the procedural requirements such as the failure to meet the quorum, etc., or seek nullification or revocation thereof by means of administrative litigation, and seeking confirmation of the invalidity of the resolution of the general meeting of partners on the management and disposition plan is unlawful, and it shall not be allowed (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da31235 delivered on February 15,

However, in a case where a resolution on a management and disposal plan is deemed to be identical to a rebuilding resolution and a modification of the rebuilding resolution in substance due to the defect in the procedures and contents of the resolution, it is possible to seek confirmation of invalidity by civil litigation. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion should be examined only to the extent that it is judged whether the management and disposal plan in this case constitutes a modification of the rebuilding resolution or rebuilding resolution (However, even if the management and disposal plan constitutes a modification of rebuilding resolution, it shall be viewed as unlawful unless there are special circumstances, inasmuch as it is merely a means of right protection, seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution through civil litigation without seeking revocation by asserting the procedural defect in a case where the management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced by an administrative agency and its fairness has occurred as an administrative disposition, and

C. Whether the approval of the instant management and disposition plan and the amendment resolution constitutes the modification of rebuilding resolution

(1) Increase in cost burdens;

In the case of modifying the contents of rebuilding resolution after the rebuilding resolution, it is necessary to apply Article 47 (2) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, which provides the quorum at the time of the rebuilding resolution, to the extent that it does not exceed the normally reasonable scope according to the changing circumstances such as price fluctuations, etc., it is reasonable to view that the contents of rebuilding resolution do not constitute an alteration within the scope that does not normally exceed the ordinarily reasonable scope (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da3864, Jun. 23, 2005).

The facts that the estimated project costs estimated at the time of the reconstruction of this case had been KRW 526,753,735,00,000, and each of the management and disposal plans resolved at the first and second extraordinary meetings of this case were increased to KRW 790,976,923,00,000, and KRW 779,00,000,000.

However, as seen earlier, ① the burden of expenses at the time of the first reconstruction resolution or the principle of calculating the burden of expenses is only a little difference in this case’s management and disposal plan, and there is no change in basic principle. ② The Defendant Union calculated and presented the estimated amount of expenses per square meter’s right at the time of the first reconstruction resolution and the estimated amount of expenses by the type of the newly-built apartment house occupancy-type, based on the estimate of project costs as at the time of the first reconstruction resolution, which can be modified according to the approval plan. ③ The outline of the reconstruction project is difficult to determine from the beginning to the stage of approval of the project plan by step-by-step formation, consultation with the persons related to the project, opinion gathering, etc., and it is common to reveal the specific form only after the completion of the construction design or the project plan, and it is difficult to view that there is an increase or decrease in the burden of expenses from the 10th reconstruction resolution or the change in regulations related to reconstruction as a matter of course to the 10th reconstruction resolution or the 20th reconstruction plan’s shares in each of the above management and disposal plan.

(2) Allocation of apartment reputation

In the re-building resolution, 1,317 households among the total 2,717 households (564 households + 379 households + 260 households + 114 households) among the total 2,44 households (130 households + 210 households + 231 households) have been reduced to 571 households among the total 2,44 households (130 households + 210 households) in the management and disposal plan resolved at the first and second special general meeting. As a result, the Defendant Union received the application for parcelling-out and allocated the priority of flat selection to the larger members upon receipt of the application for parcelling-out, all of the 25 ordinary members applied for the first in order. On the other hand, among the 18 ordinary members, 366 applicants among the 18 ordinary members, 523 applicants among the 44 square members, 172 square and 629 square among the applicants among the applicants are not assigned.

However, considering the aforementioned facts and evidence No. 21, No. 34-2, 3, 4, and 35 of the evidence No. 35, each of the following circumstances, namely, ① the matters concerning the ownership of sectional ownership in the first reconstruction resolution provide that “if the total number of members exists, priority rights shall be given to the former members,” and the same matters have been stipulated in the rebuilding resolution and the project plan, and ② the value of the assets invested in the reconstruction project is greater than that of the 18 square owners, it seems that active incentives were necessary to attract them to the reconstruction project. ③ It is difficult to find that the inaugural general meeting at the time of the inaugural general meeting that “the basic plan for development of the apartment density zone” can be modified if it is determined and publicly announced to the effect that the value of the newly constructed and altered new apartment units would have been reduced to the extent that it would have been possible to obtain approval from the members of the association due to the alteration of the floor area ratio and the size of the newly-built and altered new building type.”

(3) Burden value-added tax on the cost of housing construction services exceeding the scale of national housing;

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 8 (193 pages construction contract, business operating profit of 255 pages, and improvement project cost estimate), the Si and the defendant association agreed to separately bear the value-added tax (value-added tax on the construction service cost of apartment houses exceeding the national housing size (85m2)) on the construction service cost at the time of the construction contract. According to the management and disposal plan of this case, it can be recognized that the sum of value-added tax on apartment construction exceeding the national housing scale was added to the construction cost item among the estimated total sum of value-added tax on apartment construction in excess of the national housing scale and that the amount was shared in proportion to the apartment unit area that was sold to the apartment association members. Thus, the members who purchased apartment below the national housing scale share the value-added tax imposed on the apartment construction in excess of the national housing size.

[In the first instance court, the defendant association argued that only the members of the association who purchase the above square types shall bear the value-added tax and that no value-added tax shall be levied on the members of the association who purchase the apartment units in the size of national housing at the time of assessing the value of the new building's assets. According to the Gap evidence No. 8 (257) in the management and disposal plan of this case, it is recognized that "the size of national housing above the average amount of the members of the apartment association can be changed at the time of determining the purchase value-added tax with the amount reflecting the purchase value-added tax contributions." Meanwhile, the apartment unit's apartment unit's contribution is the amount obtained by deducting the purchase value-added tax from the apartment unit's apartment unit's apartment unit's apartment unit's apartment unit's apartment unit's apartment unit's apartment unit's apartment unit's value-added tax is the amount calculated by multiplying the previous land and building's value-added tax's value-added tax's total value-added tax's value-added tax's value-added tax's value increase.

Meanwhile, in the reconstruction project, the contractor provides construction services to the association members, and the association provides new sectionally owned buildings to the association members. Article 104-7 (3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides the association members with the construction works for the rearrangement project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents after completing the construction works for the rearrangement project, which is supplied to the association members in accordance with the management and disposal plan, and the housing, etc. supplied on behalf of the former land is not regarded as the supply of goods under Article 6 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and is excluded from the subject of the imposition of value-added tax without asking whether the land and buildings sold to the association members exceed national housing scale, while the association is obliged to pay value-added tax on the construction works for apartments exceeding national housing scale (the construction works for apartments below national housing scale are exempt from value-added tax pursuant to Article 106 (1) 4 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act); while the association is not able to pay value-added tax on the whole apartment supplied to the association members; it is possible between the association members and the association members.

In this case, the first reconstruction resolution and the business plan plan resolution of the defendant association set the amount of value-added tax of 18.4 billion won for the construction cost of apartment buildings exceeding the national housing scale and estimated the total project cost of 14.3 billion won for other project costs. In light of the fact that the association members agreed to include the total project cost and the apportionment of value-added tax, such as setting the expenses to be borne by the association members based on the above total project cost, and that at least 4/5 of the members including the plaintiffs at the time of the resolution of the reconstruction and business plan, it is reasonable to view that the defendant association and the association members agreed to include value-added tax for the supply of the association housing construction services exceeding the national housing scale in the total project cost at the time of the reconstruction resolution and set the allocation of value-added tax in proportion to the value of the apartment house, etc., so the plaintiffs' assertion that the allocation of value-added tax is remarkably contrary to equity or that it constitutes an alteration in the reconstruction resolution that does not raise any objection after the reconstruction resolution was finalized.

(4) Sale of apartment houses to commercial building members

As seen in the above 2.2, it is difficult to see that the second reconstruction resolution which determined the sale of apartment units to the members of the commercial building constitutes the alteration of the first reconstruction resolution. Since the management and disposal plan of this case, such as the second reconstruction resolution, is the same as this, the plaintiffs' assertion on this part is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the resolution of approval of the management and disposal plan at the first special meeting and the resolution of amendment to the management and disposal plan at the second special meeting does not constitute a resolution of amendment to rebuilding. Since the management and disposal plan established by each of the above resolutions is valid by the administrative agency as long as it is not revoked by an appeal litigation, it is invalid as a lawsuit filed in violation of jurisdiction to seek confirmation of invalidity of each of the above resolutions in a civil lawsuit. Since the plaintiffs filed a separate lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the management and disposal plan against the defendant association on December 28, 2007 as Seoul Administrative Court No. 2007Guhap48216, Dec. 28, 2007 (No. 44-1, 2) and the above part of the lawsuit should be dismissed without transferring it to the competent court for administrative litigation (the defendant's objection to this point is with merit).

4. Validity of a resolution on amendment of the articles of association of the association pursuant to Article 47 subparagraph 9 of the amendment;

(a) Scope of judgment of party members; and

The plaintiff asserts that the resolution on Article 47 subparagraph 8 of the articles of association (the alteration of the standard for attribution of sectional ownership of a new building to the supply of two houses to one household), among the cases of the amendment of the articles of association at the second special meeting of the defendant association, did not obtain the consent of at least 4/5 of all union members, and sought the confirmation of invalidity of the resolution. However, as long as the judgment of the court of first instance dismissed this part of the claim and only the defendant association appealed, the part of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the amendment of Article 47 subparagraph 8 of the articles of association does not fall under the scope of the party members' judgment. Thus, the party members are only determined as to Article 47 subparagraph 9 of the articles of association among the "case of the amendment of the articles of association" of the second special meeting of the defendant association.

B. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that the resolution on Article 47 subparagraph 9 of the articles of association among the cases of the amendment of the articles of association at the second special general meeting of the defendant association is null and void, since the above provisions of the articles of association violate the above Acts and subordinate statutes and the above provisions of the articles of association were null and void, even though the standards for the members who can be supplied with housing among the owners of the ancillary and welfare facilities are otherwise stipulated in Article 52 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Improvement Act

(c) Provisions of the Urban Improvement Act and the Enforcement Decree;

Article 48 (Authorization, etc. for Management and Disposal Plans)

(7) Necessary matters concerning the details of management and disposal plans under paragraph (1), methods and standards for management and disposal, etc. shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 52 (Criteria, etc. for Management and Disposition)

(2) In cases of a housing reconstruction project, the methods and standards referred to in Article 48 (7) of the Act shall be as follows: Provided, That where a City/Do municipal ordinance prescribes otherwise within the scope of the following subparagraphs, such management and disposal shall govern; and where the association separately determines such standards with the consent of all members of the association, such standards shall govern:

2. A person shall supply appurtenant and welfare facilities to the owners of appurtenant and welfare facilities (including appurtenant land): Provided, That one house may be supplied in any of the following cases:

(a) Where no new appurtenant or welfare facilities are built, the value of the existing appurtenant or welfare facilities shall be larger than the value calculated by multiplying the estimated value of the minimum unit among the houses to be sold in lots by the ratio determined by the articles of incorporation, etc. (where articles of incorporation, etc. are not prescribed by the articles of incorporation, etc., it shall be one; hereinafter

(b) The amount calculated by subtracting the estimated value of the newly supplied appurtenant or welfare facilities from the value of the existing appurtenant or welfare facilities shall be larger than the value calculated by multiplying the estimated value of the minimum sale unit among housing units to be sold by the ratio prescribed by the articles of association, etc.;

(c) The estimated value of the newly supplied appurtenant or welfare facilities shall be larger than the estimated value of the smallest unit of housing units to be sold;

(d) Markets:

Article 47 subparagraph 9 of the amendment of the articles of association proposed as an agenda item of the second general meeting of the Defendant Union provides ancillary and welfare facilities to the owners of appurtenant and welfare facilities, but only the members of the association who renounced commercial buildings and applied for the sale of apartment houses among the members of the commercial building recognized by the relevant statutes shall be entitled to give up the commercial building and apply for the sale of apartment houses by 18/100." The above provision provides that the owners of appurtenant and welfare facilities may supply one house out of the remaining households after supplying the housing to the members of the association.

However, according to the evidence No. 35 and evidence No. 43, the former Ministry of Construction and Transportation has authoritative interpretation of Article 52 (2) 2 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Ministry of Construction and Transportation as "where a new unit or welfare facility is not supplied" and the standard articles of incorporation of the Housing Reconstruction Association can also be recognized as the above. If a member of a commercial building renounces the sale of a commercial building, it shall apply mutatis mutandis to "where a new unit or welfare facility is not constructed" under Article 52 (2) 2 (a) of the Enforcement Decree, or "where a new unit or welfare facility is not constructed" under Article 52 (2) 2 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree as "where the value of the existing unit or welfare facility exceeds the value calculated by multiplying the estimated value of the unit unit among housing units to be sold by the ratio stipulated by the articles of association, etc." under Article 52 (2) 2 (a) and (b) of the former Enforcement Decree, it shall be interpreted that one house can be supplied pursuant to the above provision under Article 47 (9) of the Enforcement Decree.

Therefore, the above resolution of the amendment of the articles of association meeting sufficient quorum for the amendment of the articles of association is valid not only (the above amendment of the articles of association does not correspond to the amendment of the first reconstruction resolution, and therefore the amendment of the articles of association is sufficient as a quorum for the amendment of the articles of association), and as seen earlier, the resolution of the amendment of the management and disposal plan as mentioned above was concluded and completed until the approval is granted and completed. Therefore, the claim for nullification of the amendment of the articles of association, which is only an internal regulation of the association, without seeking the cancellation of the above management and disposal plan, is not a final

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the claim seeking confirmation of invalidity of the amendment of the articles of association regarding Article 47 subparagraph 9 of the articles of association is unlawful, among the cases of the amendment of the articles of association at the second special meeting of the defendant association.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuit of this case, the plaintiffs' resolution on the part of the "case of the resolution for reconstruction and the business plan resolution" among the "case of the resolution for reconstruction and the "case of the approval for the management disposal plan" at the first special meeting, and resolution on Article 47 subparagraph 9 of the articles of association among the "case of the amendment of the articles of association" at the second special meeting, each of the resolution on the "case of the modification of the management disposal plan" at the same general meeting, and the lawsuit on the claim for the prohibition of the execution of each of the above resolutions based thereon, shall be dismissed as unlawful. Since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is unfair with different conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent that all of the plaintiffs' lawsuits corresponding to this part shall be dismissed.

Judges Lee Sung-ho (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)