Suwon 1 Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (Attorney Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 6 (Law Firm Tae-Gyeong, Attorneys Choi Woo-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

August 21, 2009

Daegu District Court Decision 2007Gahap9058 Decided January 13, 2009

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

제1심 판결을 취소한다. 원고에게, ⑴ 피고 1(대법원 판결의 망 소외인)은 별지 목록 제1항 기재 부동산에 관하여, ⑵ 피고 2는 별지 목록 제2항 기재 부동산에 관하여, ⑶ 피고 3은 별지 목록 제3항 기재 부동산에 관하여, ⑷ 피고 4 주식회사는 별지 목록 제4항 기재 부동산에 관하여, ⑸ 피고 5는 별지 목록 제5항 기재 부동산에 관하여, ⑹ 피고 6은 별지 목록 제6항 기재 부동산에 관하여, ⑺ 피고 7은 별지 목록 제7항 기재 부동산에 관하여, 각 이 사건 소장 부본 송달일자 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기절차를 이행하고, 위 각 부동산을 인도하라.

1. Basic facts

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective entries and arguments in Gap evidence 1-1-5, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 3-1-26, Gap evidence 7-8, Eul evidence 1-1-3, Eul evidence 1-3, and the whole purport of arguments.

A. The plaintiff association is a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association established for the purpose of implementing a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project (hereinafter referred to as the "renovation project of this case") with the aim of removing old and inferior buildings located in 249-163 and 471 parcel (hereinafter referred to as "the rearrangement zone of this case") in Daegu Suwon-dong, Daegu-dong, which is designated and publicly announced as a rearrangement zone pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act"), and constructing underground floors, 27 stories apartment complexes of 27 stories above ground, 895 households above ground, and appurtenant and welfare facilities on the ground. The defendant 4 corporation owns only the land stipulated in paragraph 4 of the attached Table in the attached Table 1 to 3, and the remaining defendants together with the buildings listed in the attached Table 1 to 3, 5 through 7 and the "land owners, etc." in the Urban Improvement Act (hereinafter referred to as the "each real estate of this case").

B. On July 30, 2006, the Plaintiff Association held an inaugural general meeting for the establishment of a reconstruction association and obtained the consent of reconstruction and establishment with the consent of at least 4/5 of the whole land owners and at least 2/3 of the land area incorporated in the instant rearrangement zone. On November 30, 2006, the Plaintiff Association obtained the approval of establishment from the head of the Daegu Metropolitan City Suwon Metropolitan Government head on December 22, 2006 and completed the registration of establishment on December 22, 2006. On March 12, 2007, the Plaintiff Association notified the “land owners, etc.” who did not consent to establishment, and sent a peremptory notice to the “land owners, etc.” as of April 18, 2007.

C. The Plaintiff Union filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants on July 13, 2007, stating that the Defendants were served with each of the above peremptory notices and did not reply to the peremptory notice within two months from each of the peremptory notice, and that they exercised the right to demand sale of each of the instant real estate.

D. At the time of the Plaintiff’s establishment, the entire size of the rearrangement zone in this case is 64,149.1 square meters and the number of landowners or building owners is 354 persons (312 persons who own land, etc.). As of November 28, 2008, the entire size of the rearrangement zone in this case is 64,186.1 square meters and the number of landowners or building owners is 361 persons (321 persons who own land, etc.).

E. Meanwhile, at the general meeting held on November 24, 2007, during the course of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff Union presented a management and disposal plan clearly supplementing the matters concerning the burden of expenses, such as the presentation of specific cost-sharing standard, compared to the time of the first reconstruction resolution, and obtained a resolution of approval from 167 members (61%) on January 31, 2008 with the consent of 271 members, and received a decision of approval from the head of Si/Gun/Gu of Daegu Metropolitan City on January 31, 2008. Accordingly, the Plaintiff Union’s first reconstruction resolution and establishment consent were null and void because some members of the Plaintiff Union did not state matters concerning the cost-sharing in the written consent to the establishment of the association, but it did not state specific matters concerning the cost-sharing in the management and disposal plan, but it did not state that the Plaintiffs were required to make a resolution of 20 or more of the said general land owners and to revoke the said management and disposal plan with the consent of 10 or more members of the said general land owners.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff union's assertion

(i)The primary claim (the exercise of the right to sell under the first reconstruction resolution).

The Plaintiff Union asserts that the Plaintiff Union is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of sale on the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case with respect to each of the real estate of this case by the Plaintiff Union.

㈎ 원고 조합은 행정규칙 형식의 법규명령인 건설교통부(현 : 국토해양부)장관 고시에서 정한 주택재건축정비조합 가입동의서 양식에 따라 이 사건 정비구역 안에 있는 토지 등 소유자들에게 비용분담에 관한 구체적인 사항을 정하여 그들로부터 조합설립동의(이하 ‘제1차 재건축결의’라고 한다)를 받아 적법하게 조합설립 인가를 받은 후 피고들에게 조합설립동의 여부 등에 관한 최고를 하였지만, 피고들이 최고서를 수령한 날로부터 2월 이내에 아무런 응답을 하지 않고 있으므로, 피고들에 대하여 이 사건 소장 부본의 송달로써 매도청구권을 행사하였다.

㈏ 가사 제1차 재건축결의가 비용분담에 관한 사항이 명확하지 않아 무효라고 하더라도, 원고 조합이 2007. 11. 24.자 총회에서 비용분담에 관한 사항을 명확하게 보완한 관리처분계획을 결의하여 2008. 1. 31. 적법하게 인가를 받았고, 2007. 11. 19.부터 토지 등 소유자에게 새로운 재건축조합설립동의(이하 ‘제2차 재건축결의’라고 한다)를 받아 오고 있으므로, 제1차 재건축결의의 비용분담에 관한 사항의 하자는 치유되었다.

Shed Preliminary Claim (Exercise of Claim for Sale on the basis of the second reconstruction resolution)

From November 19, 2007 to November 28, 2008, the Plaintiff Union made the second reconstruction resolution with the consent of the establishment of the association that specified the standards for bearing the burden of expenses from the owners of the land, etc., and then notified the Defendants as to the consent of the second reconstruction resolution until December 1 of the same year. In this case, where the Defendants dispute the validity of the rebuilding resolution of the Plaintiff Union and did not comply with the request for sale, it is apparent that they expressed their intent to refuse to participate in reconstruction, and thus, they exercise their right to demand sale against the Defendants in accordance with the second reconstruction resolution.

B. The defendants' assertion

Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that the claim for sale against the Defendants of the Plaintiff Union was unlawful on the following grounds, since the Plaintiff Union did not meet the requirements for exercise or the exercise period expires, and thus, the claim for sale based on the first reconstruction resolution of the Plaintiff Union is invalid.

(1) The first reconstruction resolution is null and void because it obtained the consent of its members without expressly stating the basis for calculation of rebuilding project costs, etc. and the standard for bearing the burden of expenses.

B. In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s association exercised its right to demand sale against the Defendants within 2 months from the expiration date of the maximum period of two months, since the Plaintiff’s association asked the Defendants to participate in reconstruction at around December 2006, the Plaintiff’s association, after the authorization was granted to establish the association. However, the Plaintiff’s association exercised its right to demand sale against the said Defendants only when the period of the exercise expires much much more than the period of the exercise.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 4 Company

Before determining the validity of the first reconstruction resolution, which is the requirement for the Plaintiff’s right to demand sale, the Plaintiff’s association’s right to demand sale should be examined as to whether the Plaintiff’s association exercised its right to demand sale within the period prescribed by the Urban Improvement Act and relevant statutes.

A. Period for exercising the right to sell and its legal nature

(1) In light of the purport of Article 48(4) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and Article 48(4) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings that stipulate the duration of the exercise of the right to demand sale and the legislative purport of Article 39 that Article 48(4) of the Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, it is reasonable to interpret that a housing reconstruction association under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings can claim sale against only a person who owns only a parcel of land within the rearrangement zone within the rearrangement zone as it does not correspond to a “owner of land, etc.” under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Areas and Dwelling Areas and Dwelling Areas and Dwelling Areas (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5672, Feb. 29, 2008).

The purport of Article 48 (4) of the Complemented Building Act, which provides for the period of exercise of the right to demand sale, is that the right to demand sale should be formed by a majority of rebuilding participants' will. Thus, if the period of exercise is not limited, the other party to the right to demand sale would not be able to make a request for sale at any time and without limitation, and the legal status of the other party to the right to demand sale would be safe, as well as that the market price of sectional ownership subject to the request for sale could be set at the lowest time to make the request for sale and would unfairly infringe the rights and interests of the other party to the request for sale. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the other party to the request for sale is to protect the legitimate legal interests of the other party to the request for sale and settle the legal relations surrounding reconstruction as soon as possible, the right to demand sale should be invalidated unless it is exercised within the period of exercise of the right to demand sale. This legal principle is the same to the claim for sale against the person who owns only the land that is interpreted not to require the highest procedure under Article 48 (1).

B. Whether the exercise period of the Plaintiff’s right to sell complies with

In the instant case, the Plaintiff Union exercised the right to demand sale against Defendant 4 Co., Ltd., which owns only the land within the rearrangement zone of this case, from December 22, 2006 to February 22, 2007, which was within two months from the date of the establishment registration of the association, without taking the highest procedure. However, the Plaintiff Union filed the instant lawsuit claiming sale against the said Defendants on July 13, 2007, much more than two months from the date of the establishment registration of the association, which was more than two months after the date of the establishment registration of the association. Thus, it is obvious in the instant court. Accordingly, the Plaintiff Union’s exercise of the right to demand sale against Defendant 4 Co., Ltd., based on the first reconstruction resolution

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the exercise of the plaintiff union's right to sell to the defendant 4 corporation based on the first reconstruction resolution is unlawful due to procedural defects, i.e. non-compliance of the exercise period, regardless of whether the first reconstruction resolution is valid or not, which is a requirement for the occurrence thereof.

4. Determination as to claims against the remaining Defendants

A. Whether a judgment on the validity of rebuilding resolution is made in civil procedure

First, it is necessary to examine ex officio whether the establishment resolution (re-building resolution) of a housing reconstruction project association, which has completed the registration after obtaining authorization from the competent administrative agency after meeting the requirements and procedures prescribed by the relevant laws such as the Urban Improvement Act, can be judged as valid in civil litigation.

A disposition to establish an association conducted by an administrative agency based on relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Urban Improvement Act, does not merely have the nature of a supplementary act against establishing an association by a private person, but also has the nature of a sort of snow-right disposition that grants the status as an administrative body with authority to implement a housing reconstruction project under the Urban Improvement Act if the legal requirements are met. As such, insofar as such, a resolution to establish an association is merely one of the requirements necessary to issue an administrative disposition, such as a disposition to establish an association. As such, if there is a defect in a resolution to establish an association, it is necessary to seek revocation or invalidity of a disposition to establish an association through a direct appellate trial on the ground of the defect. Furthermore, filing a lawsuit to confirm the validity of a separate resolution to remove only the part of the resolution to establish an association cannot be the most effective and appropriate means for removing the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, and barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da60568, Sept. 24, 2009).

However, as shown below, the right to claim sale against the above Defendants, the owner of the land, etc. which the plaintiff association, which is the housing reconstruction improvement project association under the Urban Improvement Act, refused to participate in the reconstruction, shall be effective in the process and content of the reconstruction resolution. As such, the above Defendants, the counterpart to the claim for sale, can assert that the reconstruction resolution, which forms the basis of the establishment of the right to claim sale, is invalid and set up against the plaintiff association. Therefore, the validity of the reconstruction resolution in this case shall be subject to the judgment of this court, on the premise that the exercise of the right to claim sale against the above Defendants

B. Determination on the validity of the first reconstruction resolution

(i)The extent of specification of the consent of the establishment necessary for the occurrence of the claim for sale;

Since the right to claim sale under Article 48 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, occurs only when a resolution for reconstruction is effective, the right to claim sale cannot be exercised in a case where the resolution for reconstruction is null and void for reasons such as non-establishment of matters concerning the apportionment of rebuilding costs (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da24061 delivered on November 10, 200

Meanwhile, Article 16(2) of the Act and Article 26(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21171 of Dec. 17, 2008) provide that “When a committee for the promotion of housing reconstruction projects intends to establish an association, the outline of design of the building to be built, outlined amount of expenses to be incurred in removal and new construction of the building, matters concerning ownership after completion of the project, and matters concerning ownership after completion of the project must be subject to the landowner’s consent.” The matters concerning the apportionment of expenses necessary for removal and new construction of the building are the criteria for the landowners, etc. to choose whether the landowners, etc. will participate in the reconstruction while bearing considerable expenses, whether the ownership can be sold at the market price or not, and the most important and essential part of the establishment’s consent. Thus, the right of the landowners, etc. to the amount of the new construction of the apartment, the value of the apartment, etc. shall be determined at least 4040 percent percent or 54.

Dozed Facts

The following facts may be acknowledged by integrating the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 9 and 10 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

㈎ 이 사건 조합설립동의서의 주요 내용

The main contents of the “written consent to the accession of the Housing Reconstruction Improvement Project Association” attached to the first written notification of the resolution of re-building that the Plaintiff Union sent to the owners of the land, etc. in the instant rearrangement zone (hereinafter “instant consent”) are as follows.

(a) Outline of the construction of new buildings;

The total floor area of the land contained in the main sentence and the 178,100 square meters underground floors of 54,370 square meters and 27 square meters above ground and 895 households and ancillary welfare facilities;

(b) Estimated amount of the costs for removal and new construction of structures;

1. 2,16.1 billion won in total of the expenses for new construction of the tickets and other project costs included in the main sentence of KRW 1.678 billion in total of KRW 1,65.935 billion in total of KRW 48.4 billion in total of KRW 48.7 billion in total of 2,16.1 billion in total

(c) Apportionment of expenses for removal of structures and new construction;

(1) impose and collect expenses according to the articles of association, collect and pay in installments after the approval of the management and disposal plan, and finally determine settlement money at the time of liquidation of the partnership.

(2) It calculates the value of assets owned by partners as prescribed by the articles of association and shares the expenses and profits equally in accordance with the standards for administration and disposal prescribed by the articles of association in accordance with the principle of equity.

(3) The costs of construction and all related expenses to be paid to the contractor shall be preferentially appropriated as general sales revenue of housing and accessory and welfare facilities and as the shares of association members resolved or written consent at the general meeting of the union members, and, if any shortage occurs, fairly shared in accordance with the articles of association and the management

(d) Reversion of sectional ownership of the newly constructed building;

(1) The standards for the administration and disposal of the articles of association shall be followed, and the decision of the sale screening of newly constructed structures by the housing owners shall be based on the order of the maximum amount of the application for parcelling-out and the value of the previous rights, and the decision of the number of houses and houses shall be based on the computerized lottery under Article 45(5) of the articles of association: Provided, That where there exists competition

(2) The owner of welfare facilities, including commercial buildings, shall be supplied with welfare facilities newly established in consideration of the value of the previous land and buildings, in accordance with the articles of association and the management and disposal standards, and the determination of the number of houses and houses shall be in accordance with the management and disposal plan: Provided, That in cases where welfare facilities are not installed, or in cases falling under Article 43 subparagraph 8

(3) The size of housing units, etc. to be sold after the implementation of the project shall be based on the sale area (exclusive + public area), and the land shall be sold in co-ownership in proportion to the size and expenses of housing units sold in lots.

(4) The remaining housing and commercial buildings and other welfare facilities, which are sold preferentially to the members of the association, shall be sold in general in accordance with relevant laws and regulations and the articles of association.

(5) Land shall be registered after the completion of the project, and the building shall be registered for each conservation of the occupants' members.

㈏ 원고 조합의 정관 중 비용분담 등에 관한 주요 내용

On the other hand, the expenses to be borne by the articles of association of the Plaintiff association decided at the above general meeting are as follows.

Article 5 (Method of Enforcement)

(1) Members of a cooperative shall invest in kind the land and buildings owned by the cooperative, and the cooperative shall build and supply multi-family housing and ancillary and welfare facilities in accordance with the management and disposal plan authorized under Article 48 of the Urban Improvement Act

Article 32 (Revenue Sources)

Funds for the operation of an association and the implementation of projects shall be raised by the following methods:

1. Land and buildings in kind invested by members;

2. Charges, such as rearrangement project costs paid by members;

3. Revenues from the sale of buildings and appurtenant and welfare facilities;

4. Loans raised by the association from financial institutions, specialized management businessmen, constructors, etc.

5. Revenues, such as interest and late payment charges on loans;

6. Liquidation balance;

7. Other profits accrued from the use of, or profit from the property of an association.

Article 33 (Imposition and Collection of Rearrangement Project Costs)

(1) The association may impose and collect expenses incurred in implementing housing projects, such as construction expenses (hereinafter referred to as "maintenance project expenses"), from its members to appropriate funds for expenses incurred in implementing the projects.

(2) The rearrangement project cost under paragraph (1) may be imposed after a resolution of a general meeting, and shall be fairly adjusted according to the management and disposal plan, comprehensively taking into account all the conditions, such as the location, area, utilization status, and environment of the land and buildings within the project implementation zone.

Article 43 (Standards for Management and Disposal Plans)

A management and disposal plan for the property owned by the members of the association shall be formulated before the removal of the building after the application for parcelling-out and the construction cost is confirmed:

1. In principle, housing, etc. to be newly built on the basis of the price/area of the previous land and building in which members invested shall be sold;

2. The area of a building to be sold in lots after the implementation of the project shall be based on the area of sale in lots (exclusive + public area), and the land shall be sold in lots in proportion to the area of whole land of the building sold in lots;

3. Scale of housing to be sold to the association members shall be prepared by a construction plan, and determined by deliberation after receiving an authorization for project implementation;

4. The provisions of Articles 51 and 52 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the imposition and payment thereof when there is a difference between the amount of physical compensation computed on the basis of the price/area of the previous land and buildings in which a partner has invested and the amount of sale in lots in lots among the partners under an agreement with the constructor

9. The appraisal of the previous housing and appurtenant and welfare facilities (including land annexed thereto) shall be the amount appraised by not less than two appraisal business operators, stating the amount;

10. The appraised value of housing and appurtenant and welfare facilities (including land annexed thereto) scheduled for parcelling-out shall be the amount appraised by at least two appraisal business entities, stating the appraised value;

Article 51 (Settlement Money, etc.)

(1) Where there is a difference between the price of the land or building previously owned and that of the land or building sold in lots, the Mutual Association shall collect an amount equivalent to the difference from the purchaser of the land or building after the date of public announcement of transfer (hereinafter referred to as "settlement money") or pay it to the purchaser of the land or building: Provided, That where collection and installment payment are separately determined by a resolution of the general meeting after the date of public announcement of transfer, the Mutual Association may collect or pay in installments for a specific period from

(2) In applying the provisions of paragraph (1), the prices of previous lands or buildings and those of lands or buildings purchased in units shall be calculated by calculating the arithmetic mean of the values appraised by two or more appraisal business operators.

• Whether the matters concerning the burden of expenses at the time of the first reconstruction resolution have been specifically prescribed

According to the above facts, the agreement on the allotment of expenses of the association members states that "the expenses shall be imposed and collected according to the articles of association, the value of the assets owned by the association members shall be calculated as prescribed by the articles of association and apportioned according to the standards for administration and disposal stipulated by the articles of association of the association." The articles of association of the association of the plaintiff association states that "the details of allocation for each association member of the rearrangement project costs required for the housing project shall be determined by the resolution of the general meeting, and the amount shall be equally adjusted according to the management and disposal plan. Where there is a difference between the value of the previous land and buildings invested by the association members and the prices of the land or buildings purchased by lots, an amount equivalent to the difference between the new land or buildings before and after the date of the relocation announcement, and the price of the land or buildings purchased by lots to the association members at the same time shall be determined by the average of the prices of the land or buildings which are owned by the association members at the time of the reconstruction project, and the new housing and reconstruction project shall be determined by the standards for the remaining portion of the association's ownership and new building without consideration.

· Legal nature and effects of written consent attached to the Ministry of Construction and Transportation notice

Article 15(2) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008) provides the Minister of Construction and Transportation with the operational rules of the committee for the fair operation of the committee, and accordingly, the Minister of Construction and Transportation sets the operational rules of the committee for the establishment of the committee for the association for the sake of the fair operation of the committee. Accordingly, such a public announcement is effective as an administrative legislation that provides for certain matters as prescribed by the Act and subordinate statutes and provides the administrative rules of the committee for the general and abstract nature of the regulation in the form of an administrative legislation that provides for the general and abstract nature, but the above operational rules can only be deemed as a legal order within the scope of the matters delegated by the committee for the fair operation of the committee, namely, the organization, scope of operation, methods of operation, rights and obligations of members, etc. of the committee for the establishment of the redevelopment association, and it can be deemed that the consent form attached to the former Act No. 2017 can be deemed as retroactively effective as a written consent form attached thereto.

Ultimately, even if the consent on the establishment of an association is obtained from the owners of the land, etc. using the written consent form as prescribed by the above operating regulations, such circumstance alone alone cannot be deemed to have cured the defects in the entries of the cost sharing, etc. or that the written consent to the accession of this case has the validity as a valid written consent.

(v) the filing of a complaint;

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the first reconstruction resolution of the Plaintiff Union based on the written consent to the accession of this case is null and void.

C. Whether to correct defects in the first reconstruction resolution

(1) As seen earlier, the first reconstruction resolution is null and void because it does not establish specific standards for bearing the burden of expenses. On the other hand, the invalid reconstruction resolution re-determines the burden of expenses, and obtains the consent of the owners of the land, etc., so the first reconstruction resolution, which is null and void due to the cure of the defect, does not become retroactively effective. However, if the requirements for the reconstruction resolution are met upon the submission of a written written consent, it can only be deemed that there was a new reconstruction resolution from that time.

D. Furthermore, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the first reconstruction resolution of this case is merely an unrelated defect to the quorum stipulated in Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 48 of the Multi-Family Building Act, and if such defect is cured, the first reconstruction resolution becomes effective retroactively. However, the quorum necessary for treating the contents of the first reconstruction resolution can be deemed to be “the consent of 4/5 or more of the owners of land or buildings in areas other than a housing complex and 2/3 or more of landowners” under Article 16(3) of the former Act (amended by Act No. 8785 of Dec. 21, 2007) which applies at the time of the first reconstruction resolution, and the consent of 16% or more of the total number of landowners within the rearrangement plan (excluding the first reconstruction resolution of this case) and the consent of 27% or more of the total number of landowners stipulated in the management and disposal plan of this case (excluding the consent of 16% or more of the total number of landowners at the time of the first reconstruction resolution, as seen earlier in the basis.

Secondly, there was a new rebuilding resolution, and since the management and disposal plan was authorized, the plaintiff union's assertion that the defects of the first reconstruction resolution are retroactively cured is without merit.

(d) Whether an application for sale occurs by the second reconstruction resolution;

Even if a new rebuilding resolution was duly established based on the second written consent as alleged by the Plaintiff, the materials submitted by the Plaintiff union alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff union lawfully exercised the right to sell the second rebuilding claim against the Defendants. As long as the Plaintiff union only maintains the purport of the claim corresponding to the exercise of the right to sell the second rebuilding resolution under the first rebuilding resolution, and does not add the conjunctive claim corresponding to the second rebuilding resolution until the closing date of argument, the Plaintiff union’s preliminary assertion that exercised the right to sell the second rebuilding resolution is difficult to accept.

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, the plaintiff union's right to demand sale based on the first reconstruction resolution was not effective because it did not meet the substantive requirements, and the right to demand sale based on the second reconstruction resolution is unlawful since it did not meet the procedural requirements.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim against the Defendants by the Plaintiff Union shall be dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. Since the part against the Defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance is justified in its conclusion, all appeals by the Plaintiff against the Defendants are dismissed in its entirety, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Omission of Indication of Real Estate]

Judges Cho Jin-jin (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-ok