206Na38842 Invalidity of the resolution of the general meeting

Attached Table "as shown in the list of plaintiffs (26 persons, such as 00)".

Plaintiffs Dasan Law Firm

Attorney Kim Dong-dong, Kim Jong-tae, Bak-ju, Kim Young-young, Kim Jong-hee, and Choi Jin-jin

Attorney Yang Dong-dong, Kim Jae-ho

Attached Form "as shown in [40 persons per week, etc.] of the Intervenor joining the Plaintiff."

Plaintiff’s Intervenor Law Firm Dasan, Counsel for the plaintiff’s Intervenor

Attorney Kim Dong-dong, Kim Jong-tae, Bak-ju, Kim Young-young, Kim Jong-hee, and Choi Jin-jin

Overcheon-Gongju 3 Complex Housing Reconstruction Project Association

5 New Central Award 2, Dongcheon-dong 2

The number of representatives of partnership presidents;

Law Firm Pacific (Law Firm Pacific)

Attorney Kim Sung-jin, Justice Kim Jong-jin, Justice Park Jong-jin, and Justice Park Jong-chul

Suwon District Court Decision 2005Gahap9596 Decided March 31, 2006

May 17, 2007

June 7, 2007

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant, including the part arising from the Plaintiff’s participation.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s extraordinary general meeting of December 27, 2004 and the division of the special meeting of April 24, 2005 with one another at the ordinary meeting of April 24, 2005.

As to the consent to the conclusion of a contract for the redevelopment project of the Incheon-Gongju 3 Complex Apartment and the approval of the management and disposition plan

Recognizing that all resolutions are null and void.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or are composed of Gap evidence 1 through 6, Gap evidence 13-1 through 4, Gap evidence 18-1, 2, Gap evidence 21, 25 through 33, Gap evidence 34, and 39-1 through 3, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2, Eul 2 through 5, Eul evidence 13-14, Eul evidence 19-1, 20, Eul evidence 19-20, 21 and 25, 9-1, 3, 97, 97, 15-1, 97, 97, 15-1, 97, 97, 15-1, 96-1, 35-1, 97, 96-1, 96-1, 97, 15-1, 35-1, 96-3, 97, 15-1, 96-1, and 3 apartment complexes.

On May 30, 1998, the reconstruction promotion committee was organized, and the general meeting of the reconstruction association was held on May 30, 1998, the 1,66 households, among the sectional owners of 3,110 apartment buildings, were present, and the owners of 456 households were present, and the owners of 456 households were required to submit a written resolution in lieu of their attendance, and the above 1,66 households ( = 1,210 households + 456 households) were resolved to implement the establishment and reconstruction of the defendant association with the consent of the sectional owners.

B. On November 5, 200, the Defendant Cooperative held an extraordinary general meeting on November 5, 200 and attended by 1,636 households among the sectional owners of the apartment complex of 3,110 households, and the sectional owners of 420 households decided to select △△ City Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “△△△ City”) as the contractor by contract method in lieu of their attendance. On January 7, 2001, the construction project on the housing reconstruction project of △△ City was concluded between △△ City and △△ City.

C. Around March 2003, the Defendant Union prepared a form of the rebuilding resolution and the written consent for the implementation of the project, including the contents on the removal of the existing building and the apportionment of expenses incurred in the construction of the new building, the matters on the allotment of sectional ownership of the new building, and the matters on the ownership of the sectional ownership of the new building, and then delivered the form to the sectional owners of the apartment of this case and the sectional owners of the whole sectional owners of the apartment of this case (including the sectional owners of the apartment of 3,110 households and the sectional owners of the commercial buildings), with signatures and seals affixed by 2,673 persons from 80% or more of the total sectional owners of the apartment of this case (including the sectional owners of the apartment of 3,110 households and the sectional owners of the commercial buildings). The main contents of the above written consent

- The first resolution - (1) - Matters concerning (2) the estimated cost of removal and new construction of the new building (3) the cost of removal and new construction of the new building

(A) The project cost shall be preferentially appropriated with the proceeds from the general sale of the house and the additional charges of the members of the association, and if any shortage occurs, the participants in the reconstruction and their successors shall be equally imposed as follows:

(B) A partner’s contribution shall be calculated by subtracting the ownership of the relevant partner’s right [the total amount of gains from sale in lots + other revenues - (total project costs such as construction costs) 】 the current ownership of the relevant partner’s land and buildings / the total appraised value of the land, buildings, etc. owned by the entire partner within the project zone] from the purchase price of an apartment unit. (4) Matters concerning the ownership of divided ownership of a new building

The apartment reputation shall be determined according to the application for parcelling-out by the members pursuant to the rules, and if there is competition, it shall be open to the public.

D. Based on the first resolution, the Defendant Union obtained authorization for the establishment of the association from Overcheon-si on June 27, 2003, and on October 29, 2004, obtained authorization for the implementation of reconstruction project with 3,143 households of the total new apartment units from Overcheon-si on June 29, 2004.

E. The defendant union, from November 204 to December 9, 2004, prepared a management and disposal plan proposal concerning the main contract for construction works and the reconstruction project with the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and then examined the draft of the above construction project and the draft of the management and disposal plan at the 98th meeting held on December 9, 2004. After deliberation on the draft of the above construction project and the draft of the management and disposal plan at the 42 representative meeting held on December 11, 2004 at the 42 representative meeting held on December 11, 2004, each of the above bills itself was rejected, but it was decided to submit the opinion of the board of representatives with the contents of the additional reduction of the construction amount as an agenda

12. A public announcement was made on December 27, 2004 to hold an extraordinary general meeting consisting of the foregoing draft of the contract and the management and disposal plan draft. On December 14, 2004, the above draft of the management and disposal plan was intended to be held at the board of directors meeting to deliberate on the draft of the management and disposal plan to be presented to the extraordinary general meeting. However, on the date the board of directors meeting was held, there was a disturbance due to the demand for witness by some partners, etc.

F. On December 27, 2004, the defendant union held an extraordinary general meeting on 1,712 of the union members including the 3,279 union members including the 1,819 union members from among the 273 union members including the 1,670 union members from among the 1,819 union members present in place of their attendance by submitting a written resolution, and 1,712 of the union members (42 of the actual members and 1,670 union members from among the 1,819 union members from among the union members present in place of their attendance, and 670 union members from among the 1,819 union members from among the union members present in place of their attendance at the meeting (1,42 of the union members and the 1,670 union members from among the union members present in place of their attendance), and held ratification of the resolution of the board of representatives from among the following cases (2) the cases of consent to the conclusion of the main contract with the Si construction project, 4 cases of borrowing project funds, 61 and 272 of each of the management plan.

- The second resolution – (1) the total project site for the reconstruction project of the building site of the consent to the conclusion of the contract with the contractor shall be the amount of 2,696,00 won per square meter (2,00 won per square meter) on the basis of the total floor area of new apartment construction (2,69,000 won per square meter) on the basis of the order of priority in the purchase of new apartment units (2) the number of new apartment units and new housing units (3 (b) the number of members of the apartment unit (10) the apartment unit shall, in principle, be the aggregate of the number of members of the public housing unit in the order of priority in the purchase of new housing units (10), the number of members of the housing unit shall be the aggregate of the number of members of the public housing unit (1) the aggregate of the estimated value of the previous apartment units or buildings to be sold to each member, i.e., the number of members of the public housing unit shall be the aggregate of the total value of the existing apartment units or buildings to be sold to each member.

G. After the second resolution, some of the members of the defendant union who did not participate in the second resolution or who expressed an opposing opinion to the contents of the second resolution at the time of the second resolution, asserted the effect of the second resolution, and filed an application with Suwon District Court 2005Kahap89 on January 18, 2005 for provisional disposition suspending the validity of the second resolution. Accordingly, the above court made a request for provisional disposition suspending the validity of the second resolution at the above court on March 17, 2004.

12. On 27. 27. A decision of provisional disposition was rendered to suspend the validity of the resolution on the management and disposal plan proposal and the draft contract of the Corporation, and the president of the Defendant Union rendered a decision of provisional disposition with the content that the above resolution should not be executed.

H. In spite of the application for provisional disposition by some of the members of the Defendant Union, the Defendant Union gave an ordinary allocation of new apartment units from January 21, 2005 to February 4, 2005 and the drawing of such units.

On the other hand, since the whole of the apartment units of this case 3, 110 households was a house with an exclusive area of 60 square meters or less (18 square meters or less), in the case of constructing a new apartment unit with an exclusive area of 60 square meters (18 square meters or less), the number of households in excess of the newly constructed apartment units should be constructed as an apartment with an exclusive area of 60 square meters or less (18 square meters or less) according to the "small Housing Obligations Ratio System 1", which was in force at the time. In the case of the apartment units of this case, the unit of 60 square meters or less of the total new apartment units (18 square meters or less), which is 25 square meters or less of the exclusive area of 60 square meters (25 square meters or less) and 26 square meters of the total new apartment units, the number of households in each of the previous units shall be newly constructed according to the number of households (25 square meters or type apartment units and type 26 square meters):

However, according to the management and disposition plan of the defendant association, the number of members of the 13th square group applied for the first order among the members of the 15th square group, 1,156, 77% of the members of the 13th square group. 344, 23% of the members of the 25th square group, was assigned to the square group applied for the second order or lower, 691 households of approximately 86% of the total 798 units of the newly built 25,26 square group, were allocated to the former 13th square group owners of the 13th square group apartment group, and approximately 60% of them applied for the second 25,26 square group, and approximately 276 members of the 40% square group applied for the second 25,26th m26 square group.

On the other hand, 930 members who previously owned 15 square apartment units were assigned to the square model applied in the order of first priority, and 71 of them was assigned to 25,26 square units upon the first application by the 1st among 680 members who previously owned 17 square apartment units, and 678 members who were 9.8% of the former 17 square units were assigned to the square model applied in the order of first priority, and 23 of them were assigned to 25,26 square units upon the first application by the 23rd person (no dispute exists between the parties as to the result of such assignment).

- On April 4, 2005, the Defendant Union announced the convocation of a general meeting of the shareholders on April 24, 2005, including the case of the consent of the Corporation to conclude a contract and the case of the approval of the management and disposition plan with the City Corporation, on the bulletin board of the homepage of the Association on April 4, 2005, including the case of all six agenda items discussed in the second resolution including the case of the consent of the Corporation to conclude a contract with the City Corporation and the case of the approval of the draft of the management and disposition plan, and the convocation of a general meeting of shareholders on April 24, 2005, while some of the members' opposition to the draft of the construction and management and disposition plan with the City Corporation continue to exist, at the general meeting held on April 24, 2005, the above resolution of the general meeting of the members including the apartment and commercial buildings, and 254 members, among the 2,192 members present and 2,192 members present at the meeting, with the consent of 2, 2, 2, 2712, 215

(j) In addition, the defendant union received a written resolution from 487 members including the union members who attended the above general meeting and agreed on April 24, 2005, after the judgment of the first instance court of this case was rendered on March 31, 2006, from July 2006, and from 487 members including the union members who agreed on the written resolution at the general meeting of the first instance on April 24, 2005, from 2,637 members up to 80.81% of all union members among 263 and 263 members (=2,150 + 487 members) to consent to the above resolution.

On the other hand, at the special meeting of December 27, 2004 held prior to the ordinary allocation of the above, the number of union members who agreed to the proposed management and disposal plan after the ordinary allocation of the union members among the union members who did not consent to the proposed management and disposal plan after the ordinary meeting of April 24, 2005 and the subsequent written resolution after the ordinary allocation of the union members is 1,130 all. The number of union members who agreed to the proposed management and disposal plan is 32,33,43,50 among them is 884 union members who were allocated about 78% of the union members who were to whom the 32,33,43, and 50-type apartment units are allocated among them, and about 25,26-type apartment units is 246 union members who were assigned about 21%, and about 69% of the above 246 union members who applied to the order of 25,269 square.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs

According to the rules of the Defendant Union, the board of representatives of the Defendant Union and the board of directors of the board of representatives of the board of representatives of the Defendant Union provide that the matters to be presented to the meeting shall be deliberated and resolved in advance on the matters to be presented to the meeting, among the second resolution and the third resolution, the resolution was rejected by the board of representatives of December 11, 2004, which was held before the extraordinary general meeting of the board of representatives of December 27, 2004. The board of representatives of the board of representatives of December 14, 2004, tried to hold on December 14, 2004. The board of directors of the Defendant Union did not go through the deliberation and resolution of the board of directors of the above agenda and eventually failed to go through the deliberation and resolution of the board of directors of the above agenda. According to the articles of association of the Defendant Union, the board of representatives of the board of representatives of the board of representatives and the board of directors of the board of representatives of the board of representatives of the Defendant Union provided that the above procedures for public inspection of the management disposition plan should be notified.

(B) The second resolution is the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings").

In accordance with Article 47, a resolution of 4/5 or more of sectional ownership and voting rights is required for resolution of 4/5 or more of 'the matters concerning the removal of the building and the apportionment of expenses required for the construction of the new building' and 'the matters concerning the attribution of ownership of the sectional ownership of the new building' is modified, and in making the second resolution, a resolution of 4/5 or more of the members is required by analogy of Article 47 (2) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, and the second resolution did not meet the above quorum.

(C) The second resolution would prejudice the equity among the members of the association in violation of Article 47(3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act by giving priority to a large-scale person in relation to the ordinary allocation of new apartments. The members of the association, who are members of the association, who are relatively small-scale owners of the association, are deprived of the opportunity to be allocated a large amount of the new apartment and forced to allocate a small-sized type. In addition, in relation to the allocation of the construction cost to a new apartment, the members who are allocated a small-scale type of a new apartment, who are eligible for tax exemption, among new apartments, bear a part of the value-added tax according to the ratio of the value of rights. (2) The third resolution (A) 3 (the third resolution) would impair the equity among the members in violation of Article 47(3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, including the second resolution (a) such as the consent to the conclusion of a construction contract with the construction project at the time of the agenda and the draft of the management and disposal plan, proposed six agenda items at the special meeting, thereby enabling each member or opposing vote.

(B) Of the third resolution, the part regarding the consent to conclude a contract with the contractor and the part regarding the draft management and disposition plan with respect to the third resolution did not meet the required quorum as at the time of the second resolution. Even if the Defendant subsequently obtained the consent of at least 4/5 of the union members, such consent cannot be deemed the same as the resolution of the general meeting. The above consent is when the union members who purchased the right to sell lots file an application for change of name with the Defendant Union.

In addition, it is difficult to deem that the consent was made by coercion or coercion of the Defendant Union, and it is null and void as an unfair act by the other party or by gambling, and it is impossible to ratification an invalid juristic act. Thus, even if the above consent of the union members is effective, it cannot be deemed that the resolution of December 27, 2004 or the resolution of April 24, 2005, which was null and void, has been ratified. In light of the above circumstances, it is against the principle of good faith to include the consent in a written resolution as a quorum.

(C) In addition, the third resolution of April 24, 2005 and the subsequent written resolution are unlawful since the consent on the agenda of the management and disposal plan including the usual allocation method is obtained from the members who received the favorable allocation of the above ordinary allocation method after the completion of the ordinary allocation method, and there is a serious defect in the end of this year (the end at the end of this year).

B. If there is a dispute over the content of the management and disposition plan of the defendant (1) association, the lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of the resolution of the general meeting on the agenda including the approval of the management and disposition plan, is unlawful, even though it can only seek the revocation of the management and disposition plan by an administrative litigation (appeal litigation).

(2) Of the second and third resolutions, the part regarding the consent to the conclusion of a main contract and the draft of a management and disposition plan with the contractor is a legitimate resolution made by meeting the quorum in accordance with the articles of association and the articles of association of the defendant cooperative. Even if the quorum was not satisfied at the time of the above resolution, since the defendant cooperative received a written resolution from 2,637 members of the cooperative until July 2006, the valid resolution was made. (3) On April 24, 2005, when the third resolution was adopted on April 24, 2005, the part regarding the consent to the conclusion of a main contract and the draft of a management and disposition plan with the contractor was presented together with the other agenda as one agenda, but this was presented on December 2, 2004.

27. Ratification of the fact that it had been already presented at an extraordinary general meeting and had gone through discussions and resolution procedures, it cannot be deemed an infringement of the members’ selective voting rights. (4) Of the above resolution, in a case where there exists a competition in the application level, the part regarding the management and disposal plan is subject to a large amount of the value of rights of the applicant, and thus, does not violate the equity among the members of the association. In addition, the value-added tax is imposed only on only the members who purchase the above square and the members who purchase the apartment by including the value-added tax at the 43th and 50th when assessing the value of assets of a newly constructed building, and thus, there is no problem of equity among the members in relation to the value-added tax.

3. Determination

A. Whether the lawsuit is lawful

A disposition plan of reconstruction association is a disposition of a project implementer that has a specific and direct legal effect on owners of land, etc. and may seek its revocation by an appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Da31235, Feb. 15, 1996). Meanwhile, Article 47(3) and (4) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides for matters concerning the removal of a building and the apportionment of expenses incurred in constructing a new building and matters concerning the ownership of sectional ownership of a new building when a resolution for reconstruction is adopted. Such matters are not determined to maintain equity among sectional owners. Thus, if a resolution for reconstruction fails to meet the quorum or are obviously contrary to equity among sectional owners, it can seek the confirmation of invalidity of such resolution for reconstruction as a civil lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da2002).

4. As seen in paragraph (26), 201Da78980, June 9, 2005, 2005Da11404, February 23, 2006, and 2005Da1952, 19569, etc.) and paragraph (2) below (3) below, the part of the decision with the contractor as to the conclusion of the contract with the contractor and the conclusion of the management and disposition plan with respect to the removal of the building and the construction of the new building, regardless of its title, are modified to the matters concerning the apportionment of expenses incurred in the construction of the new building and the ownership of the sectional ownership of the new building. The plaintiffs are legitimate in the rebuilding resolution under Article 47 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, and the plaintiffs are seeking confirmation of invalidity due to the defect in the procedure and content of the reconstruction resolution as well as the defect in the contents thereof. Accordingly, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. According to each letter of evidence 4 and 10 as to whether the second resolution is null and void (1) the rules of the defendant association stipulate that the council shall have a board of representatives to deliberate and decide on the agenda items of the general meeting (Article 21 subparag. 19), and that the council shall have a board of directors for executing the affairs of the association and shall deliberate and decide on the agenda items to be presented to the general meeting and the council of delegates (Article 24 subparag. 2). In the case of the reconstruction association, the majority of the general meeting of the board of representatives as the highest decision-making agency is binding on all the members, while the above majority of the board of representatives and the board of representatives are merely merely internal decision-making of the organization.

12. The plaintiffs' assertion in this part is without merit, since it is difficult to view that the above agenda was a serious procedural defect that can invalidate a resolution of a general meeting, in submitting the agenda concerning the consent to conclude a contract of construction works with the contractor and the approval of a management and disposition plan to the general meeting held on the general meeting held on the 27th day. (2) The defect in the public perusal and notice is without merit.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 5, Article 46 of the articles of incorporation of the defendant association provides that the association shall make copies of the relevant documents available to the association members for public inspection for 30 days or more prior to obtaining authorization of the management and disposition plan, and notify each union member of important matters, such as the outline of the management and disposition plan. The purport of allowing public inspection, notification, and hearing of opinions is to guarantee the rights of the union members and the exercise of voting rights. Thus, if the union members are aware of the main contents of the management and disposition plan in advance, the resolution of the general meeting is valid since the right of discussion and the appropriate exercise of voting rights are not obstructed. According to the evidence No. 15, according to the statement of evidence No. 15, the defendant association, prior to holding the special meeting on December 27, 200

11. On the 29. 29. 29. The data room of the association, which proposed that all the members of the association will be presented to the general meeting through a deliberation and resolution of the board of directors and the board of representatives in the future, posted the same management and disposal plan guidelines as the second resolution, and the members of the defendant association could not have any restrictions on access authority to peruse the management and disposal plan guidelines posted in the data room of the association homepage. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the members of the defendant association knew of the major contents of the management and disposal plan before the special meeting on December 27, 2004. Thus, even if the defendant association did not go through the inspection and notification procedure in accordance with the procedures and methods stipulated in the articles of association, it is difficult to view this part of the plaintiffs' assertion as a serious procedural defect that can invalidate the resolution of the general meeting. (3) It constitutes a non-corporate association established through the reconstruction resolution of the quorum under the Civil Act. However, the agreement of the members of the association can only be made by the resolution of the general meeting.

However, according to the above facts, the part of the second resolution on the conclusion of construction contract with the contractor shall be 3,143 households in total and 5,305 billion won ( = 59,18 X 2,696,00 won) excluding the value-added tax on the contractor, and it shall be decided at approximately 2,620 households in total as discussed at the time of the first resolution on new apartment construction and its construction price shall be 5,80 billion won in total (1), or 168 households in total to increase the construction price, and the portion of the second resolution on the reconstruction plan shall be deemed to be a large-scale resolution on the reconstruction plan, which shall be 4,713 billion won in total, which shall be 5,00 won in total, and shall be deemed to be a new resolution on the reconstruction plan to increase the number of new construction costs, which shall be 4,7130,000 won in total, without the second resolution on the reconstruction plan's order and the second resolution on the reconstruction plan's order.

(c) whether the third resolution is null and void (1) as a whole;

However, since the defendant's association's rules or articles of association prohibit the collective presentation of several items to be presented to the general meeting as one item, or does not impose any restrictions on the method of presenting items, etc., it is difficult to see that even if the defendant puts all six items resolved at the special general meeting of December 27, 2004 as one item of the item of subparagraph 1 at the special meeting of the defendant's association on April 24, 2005, it is difficult to see that it is a major procedural defect that can invalidate the resolution of the general meeting, and therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion in this part is without merit.

(2) Defect in the quorum

According to the above facts, among the third resolution which contains the ratification of the second resolution, the part of the consent to the conclusion of the contract of construction and the approval of the management and disposition plan with the contractor is subject to the reconstruction resolution stipulated in Article 47 of the Multi-Family Building Act as seen earlier, but the majority opinion of only 2,271 members among the 3,263 members including the sectional owners of apartment and commercial buildings who obtained the approval of only 4/5, 2,61 members among the 2,263 members, and less than 4/5 of the quorum 2,61, and the resolution of the general meeting was not satisfied. This is a significant defect that should invalidate the resolution

D. Whether a separate resolution was made in writing after the third resolution (1) cannot be effective as additional consent to the reconstruction of a part of sectional owners thereafter, but whether to consent to reconstruction cannot be easily decided by sectional owners, and even if consent is not enforced in writing, in the case of reconstruction through the establishment of a reconstruction association as an non-corporate body, it is not necessarily determined by the resolution at the general meeting, and even if the consent did not meet the necessary quorum, it is not necessarily determined by the resolution at the 20th general meeting, and it is not necessary to establish a separate resolution at the 20th general meeting (20th general meeting, 5th general meeting and 4th general meeting). It is not necessary to establish a separate resolution at the 40th general meeting, 5th general meeting with the purport that the consent was obtained by the sectional owners during the reconstruction process. It is not necessary to establish a separate resolution at the 206th general meeting (20th general meeting, 40th general meeting and 5th general meeting).

(3) However, as seen earlier, the written resolution in this case was made after the completion of the ordinary allocation of new apartment. The above ordinary allocation of apartment units and the written resolution in this case made thereafter are significant and procedural defects as follows. (A) As seen earlier, the reconstruction in this case is 3,10 old apartment units ( = 13 square units 1,50 units + 15 square units ＋ 930 units + 17 square units 680 units). The new apartment units are 3,143 units ( = 3,143 - 3, 110 units) and the new apartment units were assigned to 15 square units ; (b) the owner of the new apartment units is 1:1 reconstruction in fact; (c) the previous apartment units were sold to 3,143 units; (d) the new apartment units were newly built at 15 square units ; and (e) the owner of the new apartment units at 3,15 square units 1; and (e) the previous apartment units at 13, 15 square units 3;

1. Following the implementation of the mandatory ratio system of small-sized apartment units 1,50 units 375 units 1,50 units 1,232 units 930 units 15 units 170 units 170 units 170 units 170 units 170 units 25 units 25 units 25 units 25 units 25 units 25 units 25 units 26 units 25 units 27 units 26 units 2,26 units 2,26 units 27 units 2,26 units 3 units 2,26 units 2, among owners 691 units 6 units 2,25 units 27 units 2,26 units 2,26 units 2,26 units 2, among owners 13-type apartment units 25 units 2,26 units 2,25 units 2,26 units 2, and one unit 2, among the previous units 25 units 31 units 2.

In light of the following: (a) the owner of a newly-built apartment is bound to newly construct 25, 26 square meters; (b) the owner of a newly-built apartment is bound to have the allocation to 15, 17 square meters; (c) the owner of a newly-built apartment is bound to have the allocation to 13 square meters or lower; (d) the new-type apartment is to have the allocation to 25,26 square meters or lower among those who applied for 25, or lower ranking apartment units; and (e) if the new-built apartment units are reconstructed without the application of the mandatory ratio system to 13,15, or 17 square meters, if the new-type apartment units were to have the allocation to 13 square meters or to have the allocation to 15 square meters in proportion to the previous-type apartment units, the previous owner of the newly-built apartment units would have the maximum allocation to 25 square meters or to have the allocation to 17 square meters in proportion to the previous-type apartment units. However, if the previous apartment units are newly built in proportion to 15 square units or 25 square units.

(B) Next, the defendant union met the quorum of the written resolution in this case by obtaining the written resolution in the 1st and 3th resolution after the above ordinary allocation. This does not change from the majority of the members who entered a favorable position due to the above ordinary allocation without considering the interests of the minority members who entered an unfavorable position due to the above ordinary allocation. In addition, it is reasonable to view that the above written resolution in the 2th written resolution in this case had a significant defect in the 4th written resolution in the 2nd resolution in the 2nd resolution in the 4th and 6th resolution in this case, including the above usual allocation, and that the above 4th resolution in the 2nd resolution in this case had a significant defect in the 6th resolution in the 2nd resolution in the 2nd resolution in this case, the above 4th resolution in this case had a significant defect in the 4th resolution in the 2nd resolution in the 4th resolution in this case including the above ordinary allocation. In light of the above 4th resolution in this case's 6th resolution in the 2nd resolution in this case's general allocation.

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, since the parts of the second resolution and the third resolution concerning the consent to the conclusion of the main contract and the approval of the management and disposal plan bill with the contractor are serious defects that do not meet each quorum, they are null and void without further examination as to the remaining arguments of the plaintiffs, and as long as the defendant is dissatisfied with this, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of invalidity thereof.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted with due reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Chang-suk

Judges Gangseo-gu

Judges Park Byung-tae

1) former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6916 of May 29, 2003)

Article 31 (Standards, etc. for Housing Construction)

(1) Construction standards of housing to be constructed and supplied by a project undertaker, standards for installation of incidental facilities and welfare facilities, scale of housing, and scale of housing.

The construction ratio and housing site preparation standards (hereinafter referred to as "housing construction standards, etc.") shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(2) A project undertaker shall implement a housing construction project or a housing site preparation project in accordance with housing construction standards, etc.

of this section.

Enforcement Decree of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18046 of Jun. 30, 2003)

Article 31 (Ratio of Supply by Housing Scale)

(1) When the Minister of Construction and Transportation deems it necessary for a proper demand and supply of housing, he shall do so under Article 31 (1) of the Act

75 percent of the total floor space of the housing to be constructed by a project proprietor under the provisions of Article 44 (3) of the Act

one housing association (excluding a reconstruction association) or within the limit of 100 percent for housing to be constructed by an employer

It may be allowed to construct a national housing scale more than the rate determined by the Director of the Department of Transportation.

Guidelines on the ratio of supply by housing scale to housing associations, etc. (Enforcement from the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, December 1, 2001)

Article 5 (Construction Ratio by Scale of Reconstruction Association)

(1) For houses constructed by a reconstruction association in an overconcentration control region under the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act with at least 30 households

At least 20 percent of the total number of houses shall be constructed with an area for exclusive use by not more than 60 square meters.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), the houses to be supplied to reconstruction members shall be constructed up to the scale of the existing house.

may be deemed to have been made.

Article 6 (Adjustment of Construction Ratio by Scale)

(1) The Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City Mayors and Do Governors (hereinafter referred to as "Mayor/Do Governor") shall be referred to in Articles 3 and 5 (1).

The construction ratio may be adjusted within five percentage points for each region.

2) For example, for the following reasons: (a) the total share of the site by square of the previous 13 square meters 1,500 households is 80,895 square meters, and (b) the evidence No. 55 square meters 66 square meters; (c) 1

The average housing site shares per household are 53.93m ( = 80,895m2/1,500 households) and the floor area ratio is 37% ( = 1.8637m2) per household multiplied by 186.37%.

It can be anticipated that a new apartment can be allocated in 30 square meters (100 5093 square meters = 53.93 square meters x 1.8637).

3) In fact, in the first resolution, the amount of the application shall be preferentially allocated, and in the event of competition, the maximum amount of the value of the right shall be considered.

It was adopted that the public lottery would be based on the public lottery without any exception.

4) For example, 25,26 square-type apartments that are newly built by owners of 13 square-type apartment 1,500 households at the rate of 25 percent.

375 Generations are allocated by drawing, etc., and owners of 930 previous 15 square-type apartment units are entitled to 25% of these units.

New 25, 26-type apartment units 232 units are allocated by lot, etc., and the previous 17-type apartment units are 680 units.

The number of owners who newly built 25% of that 25% of that 170 units of 26 square apartment units shall be allocated by drawing, etc.