[1] Whether a decision of the general meeting of partners is necessary to revise a management and disposition plan under the Urban Redevelopment Act (affirmative)

[2] The case denying the necessity of a ruling of assessment on the ground that the cancellation of an illegal management and disposition plan cannot be deemed significantly inappropriate for public welfare by simply on the ground that the time and expenses are frequently required for the decision of the general meeting of partners to revise the management and disposition plan

[1] Articles 18 and 34 of the Urban Redevelopment Act provide that a resolution of the management and disposal plan shall be passed at a general meeting composed of the members prior to an application for authorization of the management and disposal plan. The purport of this provision is to reflect the intent of the members of the association about the formulation of the management and disposal plan and to reasonably adjust their mutual interests. Thus, where the general meeting intends to apply for authorization by amending the management and disposal plan resolved at the general meeting, it shall undergo a resolution of the general meeting on the contents

[2] The case denying the necessity of a judgment of assessment on the ground that the cancellation of an illegal management and disposition plan cannot be deemed significantly inappropriate for public welfare by simply on the ground that the time and expenses are frequently required for the decision of the general meeting of partners to revise the management and disposition plan.

[1] Articles 18(1)9 and 34 of the Urban Redevelopment Act / [2] Articles 18(1)9 and 34 of the Urban Redevelopment Act; Article 28 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Du11595 delivered on July 23, 199

Plaintiff

Housing Improvement Development Cooperatives (Attorneys Lee Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu14388 delivered on May 9, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Articles 18 and 34 of the Urban Redevelopment Act provide that a general meeting composed of its members prior to an application for authorization of a management and disposal plan shall undergo a resolution regarding the management and disposal plan. Since the purport of the Act is to reflect the intent of the members of the association regarding the formulation of the management and disposal plan and to reasonably adjust their mutual interests, where a general meeting intends to apply for authorization by amending the management and disposal plan resolved at the general meeting, it shall undergo a resolution of the general meeting regarding the modified contents (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du11595, Jul. 23, 199).

In full view of the selected evidence, the court below acknowledged that the redevelopment partnership prepared a management and disposal plan to sell 44 square-type apartment units to the plaintiff who is the owner of the land located within the project district and passed a resolution of the general meeting of partners on December 7, 1997. However, the court below determined to the purport that the part of the management and disposal plan to be modified by the general meeting on December 7, 1997, which did not go through a resolution of the general meeting of partners, is unlawful since it did not go through a resolution of the general meeting on December 7, 1997 to the plaintiff who purchased the additional ownership shares after the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out in accordance with this reply, and it did not go through a resolution of the general meeting on December 3, 198, which did not go through a significant change in the rights and interests of the union members including the plaintiff.

In light of the records and the legal principles as seen earlier, such judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the amendment, etc. of the management and disposition plan, and it cannot be deemed that the cancellation of the management and disposition plan of this case is significantly inappropriate for the public welfare solely on the ground that the general meeting takes more time and expenses to make a decision on the revised management and disposition plan. Therefore, it cannot be said that the court below erred in failing to render a judgment on the dismissal of

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)