[1] Whether there is a benefit to seek confirmation of invalidity of the initial resolution for the appointment of an officer in a case where the general meeting held again after the resolution of appointment of an officer at the redevelopment association was passed again at the general meeting held (negative)

[2] In a case where an assembly for a rebuilding resolution under Article 47 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and an inaugural general meeting for the establishment of a reconstruction association under Article 44 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act are held in one appearance, whether the provisions on the convening procedure of the inaugural general meeting for the establishment of a reconstruction association can be applied (negative)

[1] Article 68 of the Civil Act, Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 47 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, Article 44 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6852 of Dec. 30, 2002) (refer to Article 16 (2) of the current Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da35754 delivered on December 22, 1998 (Gong1999Sang, 193) Supreme Court Decision 2001Da64479 Delivered on September 26, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 2056) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da1952, 19569 Delivered on February 23, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 482)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Dong-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (Attorney Park Chang-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na26760 decided July 8, 2005

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the existence of interest in invalidity confirmation of a representative appointment resolution

A. In a case where a resolution to accept the above previous resolution at the general meeting held again after the resolution to appoint an officer was adopted at the initial general meeting of the reconstruction association, seeking confirmation on the invalidity of the previous resolution is merely seeking confirmation of the past legal relations or legal relationship, unless there are special circumstances such as the absence or invalidity due to defects in the new general meeting resolution or the cancellation of such resolution, even if the original resolution is null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da64479 delivered on September 26, 2003).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, even if a resolution to appoint the Nonparty as the representative at the general meeting of the defendant association held later is null and void, as long as the resolution to accept the appointment of the Nonparty’s representative at the general meeting of the defendant association held thereafter satisfies the quorum, seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution to appoint the representative at the general meeting of the general meeting of the defendant association is justifiable to have obtained confirmation of the past legal relations or legal relations, and it is not unlawful because it fails to meet the requirements for protection of rights, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles due

B. In addition, in case where a sectional owner of an aggregate building holds an inaugural general meeting for resolution of reconstruction under Article 47 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and for the establishment of a reconstruction association under Article 44 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6852 of Dec. 30, 2002) in the course of a reconstruction project in the course of a reconstruction project, even if the general meeting is held in the outer form one, the resolution which is held legally shall be legally divided into a rebuilding resolution by the managing body meeting composed of each building and the establishment of one reconstruction association consisting of the sectional owners. Since the rebuilding resolution does not form part of the establishment of a reconstruction association, the regulations on the management body meeting for the convocation procedure of the inaugural general meeting for the establishment of a reconstruction association cannot be applied (refer to Supreme Court Decision 2005Da1952, 19569 of Feb. 23, 206), and in light of these legal principles, the provisions on the convocation procedure of a reconstruction association and the management of an aggregate building shall not be accepted.

2. As to whether the quorum for the resolution of the inaugural general meeting is met

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with respect to the plaintiff's assertion that each annexed resolution (i) made at the general meeting of the defendant association (i) the resolution made at the general meeting of the association, (ii) the method of business, (iii) the selection of the corporation, and (iv) other matters are invalid due to the failure to meet the intention and the quorum, the court below rejected the plaintiff's allegation in the above assertion, based on the following reasoning: (a) it is insufficient to prove the above alleged facts as stated in its reasoning; (b) it is deemed that 4,278 of the owners of the apartment and commercial buildings of this case at the general meeting of the defendant association, among the 6,924 members of the apartment and commercial building at the general meeting of the defendant association, shall be deemed to have been directly present or to have been present through a written resolution, and (d) 4,278 of the members present at the general meeting of the association, and (2) the majority 4,264 members

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, we affirm the judgment below's finding of facts and judgment as just, and there is no error in the misconception of facts or failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations by violating the rules of evidence as to documents related to the inaugural general meeting of this case, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. All of the arguments on this part of the appeal are without merit.

3. 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 Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)