Doi Young Apartment Reconstruction and Maintenance Project Association (Law Firm Sol, Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] The Korea Foundation (Attorney Yyang-yang et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

May 25, 2007

1. Subject to the Plaintiff’s permission for modification of the articles of incorporation pursuant to the “sale of fundamental property by which the date of sale is November 29, 2006,” the Defendant received KRW 9,105,360,000 from the Plaintiff at the same time, and simultaneously received from the Plaintiff the Plaintiff:

A. On November 29, 2006, the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership was implemented on November 29, 2006 with respect to the share of 689.8/1274.5 square meters in Songpa-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 20-2 large 1274.5 square meters;

B. Of the above site 1274.5 square meters, the remainder of 689.8 square meters, excluding the portion of the attached drawing A, B, B, and B, shall be handed over.

2. The defendant will implement to the competent authority the procedure for applying for an amendment of the articles of incorporation following the sale of the fundamental property as "the plaintiff, the seller, the defendant, and the date of sale" with respect to the real property stated in Paragraph 1 (a).

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. The 1/5 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant.

5. Paragraph 1-b. above may be provisionally executed.

Except for those seeking simultaneous performance with KRW 6,139,220,000 with respect to paragraph (1) of the order, the same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: Gap evidence 1, 2-1, 2, and 3-1 through 4, 4, 5-1, 2, 6 through 8, 9 through 11-1, 2, 12, 13-1, 2, 14, 15-1, 2, 15-2, 1 through 3, 6, 9, 10-1, 2-1, 7-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, and 7-2 of the evidence, the result of appraisal by the non-party, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of supplementation:

A. Status of the parties

(1) The Plaintiff is a reconstruction association established for the purpose of removing existing buildings and rebuilding multi-family housing and commercial buildings on the site by the sectional owners of the 17th Jincheon-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul.

(2) On July 5, 2006, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the Defendant’s contribution on December 8, 2004 by the Gangseo-dong Central Diplomatic Association (hereinafter “instant church”) with respect to the portion of 689.8/1274.5 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) among the said reconstruction project site located in the building site of Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant building site”).

B. Resolution on the establishment and reconstruction of the Plaintiff Association

(1) On January 15, 1995, the sectional owners, including 163 Dong-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 17 site, etc., held an inaugural general meeting on the ground, and 5,412 households, who agreed to establish the association among 6,208 sectional owners, submitted a written written consent, and 3,504 households among them, passed a resolution for reconstruction for the purpose of implementing the reconstruction project and approved the rules of the association.

(2) The Plaintiff’s membership under the Plaintiff’s bylaws is “a person who owns incidental and welfare facilities, such as housing or commercial buildings, within the above business zone” (Article 8), and the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a reconstruction association from the head of Songpa-gu on January 15, 2001, as 4,961 members who agreed to reconstruction from the head of Songpa-gu.

(3) On the other hand, at the inaugural general meeting of January 5, 1995, a legitimate rebuilding resolution was not adopted, but thereafter, at the time of the written resolution for reconstruction, the consent rate of the entire sectional owners is at least 80%, and at the time of the modification of the establishment of the reconstruction association as of July 30, 2001, the written consent rate for each building exceeds 60%, and after the amendment by Act No. 6250, Jan. 28, 2000, the Housing Construction Promotion Act was repealed by the amendment of the Housing Act as of May 29, 203 to the Housing Act as of May 6916, 200, and the rebuilding resolution was adopted in writing that satisfies at least 4/5 of the entire sectional owners within the housing complex, which are the quorum for rebuilding resolution, and at least 3/5 of sectional owners by each building.

C. Circumstances such as the change of ownership of the instant building site

(1) The instant site was originally owned solely by Seoul Special Metropolitan City. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City carried out a compartmentalization and rearrangement project on the surrounding site including the instant site, and on September 14, 1976, selected the instant church as a religious organization within the sericultural apartment complex. On December 1, 1976, the Defendant specified 80 square meters among the instant site and purchased 3,520,000 won, and on July 9, 1977, purchased 70 square meters by specifying the annual interest of 2,80,000 won and purchased 150 square meters (i.e., 496 square meters, drawing indication A, and B) on the ground of the instant site, and thereafter newly constructed the instant church on December 28, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant church building”).

(2) The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Development Corporation (hereinafter “Seoul Urban Development Corporation”) made an investment in kind with the remaining part of 778.5 square meters of the instant land except for the part purchased by the Defendant with specific description as above to the Seoul Urban Development Corporation (hereinafter “Seoul Urban Development Corporation”) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership as to the portion of 778.5/1274.5 of the instant land among the instant land according to the ratio occupied by the Defendant in kind on November 20, 190.

(3) In accordance with the ratio of the part purchased on November 30, 1994 to the total area, the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant with respect to the share 496/1274.5 of the instant land among the instant land, and on December 30, 1994, the registration of ownership transfer is completed in the name of the defendant for the instant church building.

(4) Meanwhile, from around 1990 to the Seoul Urban Development Corporation, the instant church continuously filed a civil petition demanding the instant church to sell the portion of 778.5 square meters owned by the Seoul Urban Development Corporation among the instant land. The Seoul Urban Development Corporation continued to conduct the sales consultation with the instant church in order to adjust the sharing share and resolve the civil petition, but the conclusion of the sales contract is delayed due to the sales price. On August 3, 2001, the sales contract was concluded between the said church and the instant church, as well as the remaining 689.8 square meters (excluding the portion of 88.7 square meters used as a road among the portion of 778.5 square meters owned by the Seoul Urban Development Corporation; hereinafter referred to as the “instant site”).

(5) The instant church completed the registration of ownership transfer relating to the share of 689.8/1,274.5 (hereinafter “instant share”) out of the instant land in proportion to the ratio of the share purchased to the full payment of the purchase price on June 17, 2004 and the share purchased among the total area.

D. Circumstances in which the site of this case was included in the rebuilding project site

(1) Although the instant site was not included in the rebuilding project plan in the original rebuilding project plan for public perusal of the basic rebuilding plan, it was included in the “housing site” in the relevant basic plan as the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Public Notice No. 2000-272 of September 25, 2000, which became final and conclusive by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Public Notice No. 2000-272 of September 25, 200. The instant church building was expropriated in the “4-2 State center site” site as a religious facility.

(2) On July 5, 2001, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Urban Development Corporation for purchase and approval to use part of 778.5 square meters of the instant site owned by the Seoul Urban Development Corporation as residential areas for reconstruction projects under Section 4 of the Seoul Urban Development Corporation (Si Young apartment complex). On August 4, 2001, the Seoul Urban Development Corporation consented to use the said part to the Plaintiff for reconstruction projects, and notified the Plaintiff that the sales contract was already concluded with the instant church regarding the instant site.

(3) Afterwards, the building plan for the church site located in the new-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul was included in the "Sacheon-gu, 4 main apartment complex reconstruction project plan plan" as publicly announced by the public inspection on June 23, 2003 (No. 2003-41 of the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Notice), and the entire site of this case was included in the project implementation district, and the building plan for the church site located in the main facilities was also included in the conditions for approval of the project plan.

E. Acquisition of ownership of the pertinent lawsuit and the Defendant’s share in the dispute of this case

(1) On August 8, 2001, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant regarding the share ownership in the name of the Defendant and the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership of the church building of this case on its ground among the instant land. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant exercised the right to demand sale under Article 48(1) and (4) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, since the Plaintiff did not consent to the rebuilding resolution even though he/she owned the instant church building, which is a welfare facility (a religious facility), within the site for a reconstruction project, without consent to the rebuilding resolution in the Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na28110, which was the appellate court. The above court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on January 7, 2005, and rendered the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. On May 26, 2005, the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed, and the judgment

(2) Meanwhile, on June 17, 2004, the church of this case completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the share in the dispute of this case, and the plaintiff notified the church of December 10, 2004 to reply to whether to participate in the reconstruction. The plaintiff exercised the right to claim the sale of the land in the dispute of this case to the church of this case and was awarded a favorable judgment on June 30, 2006 by filing a lawsuit for the claim for the registration of ownership transfer and the claim for the delivery of the right to claim the sale of the land in the dispute of this case to the Seoul Eastern District Court 2005Kahap1214.

(3) On July 5, 2006, immediately after the above judgment, the church of this case appealed against the above judgment. On December 8, 2004, the church of this case completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the share in the dispute of this case to the defendant, and accordingly, the defendant incorporated the share in this case into the defendant's basic property.

(4) On the other hand, the plaintiff filed an application with the defendant and the church of this case for the surrender and provisional disposition on the church building of this case as Seoul Eastern District Court 2006Kahap817, and removed the church building of this case in accordance with the above court's decision.

F. Plaintiff’s claim for sale

(1) On September 27, 2006, the plaintiff notified the defendant that he will reply to whether he will participate in rebuilding, and notified the defendant that he will exercise the right to demand sale under the Aggregate Buildings Act, etc. if he does not participate in rebuilding, and the above peremptory notice reached the defendant on September 28, 2006.

(2) On November 23, 2006, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he would not participate in the re-building, and did not reverse it thereafter.

(3) On October 19, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant claiming that the share in the instant dispute be sold as part of the exercise of the claim for sale under Article 48 of the Aggregate Buildings Act or Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). Meanwhile, the market price of the instant dispute is equivalent to KRW 9,105,360,000 on the basis of the status in which reconstruction was promoted as of November 29, 2006.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

(A) The assertion that the right to demand sale of the land in the instant dispute may be exercised

① Even if the site of this case, i.e., the site of this case, excluding the indication A, B, B, and B of the attached drawing, and the remaining 689.8 square meters among the land of this case, are the site without an appurtenant building, a reconstruction project operator pursuant to Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act may file a claim for sale against the Defendant, as long as the Defendant, who is the owner of the said site, did not consent to the establishment of the association within the project area, did not consent to the establishment of the association of the Plaintiff.

② Even if not, the site of this case was the site attached to the church building of this case, which is the “welfare facility” within the rebuilding project district, and since the church building of this case was destroyed by the removal execution following the decision of the acceptance of the removal of the building, the determination of the attached site shall be made on the basis of the conditions before it was destroyed. In accordance with the State Promotion Act, which stipulates the owner of the “welfare facility (including the site attached to the welfare facility concerned)” as the qualification for reconstruction association members, the defendant who owns the site of this case, which is the building of this case and the site attached thereto, within the rebuilding project district, shall be entitled to exercise the right to claim the sale of the site of this case against the defendant pursuant to the Aggregate Buildings Act.

(B) Pursuant to Article 48(1) and (4) of the Multi-Family Building Act, a written peremptory notice shall be given to the union members who did not consent to the rebuilding resolution as to whether they participated in rebuilding resolution, and a written peremptory notice may exercise the "right to demand sale" against the union members who did not reply within two months to that peremptory notice. Since the defendant did not consent to the rebuilding resolution, the plaintiff shall exercise the right to demand sale of the land in the dispute of this case by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case against the defendant.

(C) The share in the instant dispute is the Defendant’s fundamental property, and thus, the Defendant’s amendment of the articles of incorporation and the permission of competent authorities based on the above disposition is required. However, on the condition that the purchaser is permitted to amend the articles of incorporation following the sale of basic property, “the Plaintiff, the seller, and the date of sale,” the Plaintiff is paid KRW 6,139,220,000 from the Plaintiff in exchange for payment and reimbursement of KRW 6,139,220,000, the Defendant sought to transfer the ownership of the share in the instant dispute and deliver the land in the instant dispute.

(D) In order for the Plaintiff to obtain the registration of transfer of ownership for the share in the instant dispute from the Defendant pursuant to the above (c), it is necessary to first permit the competent authority to amend the articles of incorporation following the Defendant’s disposition of the Defendant’s fundamental property. As such, the Defendant seeks from the competent authority to implement the procedure for filing an application for an amendment of the articles of incorporation following the sale of fundamental property, which read “the Plaintiff, the seller, the Defendant, and the sale date, November 29

(2) The defendant's assertion

(A) The land in the dispute of this case is separate from the part on which the church of this case is a building of this case, and it is purchased from the Seoul Urban Development Corporation by specifying its location and area, and since the defendant transferred its ownership, it cannot be deemed as an accessory site to the church of this case. Thus, it cannot be deemed as an object of a claim for sale under the Aggregate Buildings Act.

(B) The share in the instant dispute is stipulated in the articles of incorporation as the Defendant’s basic property, which is the incorporated foundation, and the disposition of fundamental property is legally null and void, as it is impossible to amend the articles of incorporation without permission from the competent authority. Therefore, the disposition of fundamental property following the Plaintiff’

(C) Since the procedure for amending the articles of incorporation necessary to dispose of the basic property of an incorporated foundation is the inherent business of the incorporated foundation, the Plaintiff cannot file a lawsuit in court, and even if the Plaintiff was awarded a favorable judgment to comply with the procedure for filing an application for an amendment of the articles of incorporation following the sale of basic property, the competent authority does not necessarily permit the above application

(b) Markets:

(1) Determination on a claim for sale under the Urban Improvement Act

Article 3 of the Addenda to the Urban Improvement Act (amended by Act No. 6852 of Dec. 30, 202) provides that "any disposition, procedure and other acts committed under the Urban Redevelopment Act, the Act on Temporary Measures to Improve the Dwelling Conditions for Low-Income Urban Residents, and the Housing Construction Promotion Act (hereinafter referred to as the "previous Act") at the time of the enforcement of this Act shall be deemed to have been performed under the provisions of this Act," and Article 7 (1) of the Addenda provides that "the execution under the previous Act shall be governed by the previous Act upon the approval of the project plan or the authorization to implement the project before the enforcement of the Urban Improvement Act, the Urban Improvement Act shall not apply to the case of obtaining the approval of the project plan or the authorization to implement the project after the enforcement of the Urban Improvement Act, and only in the case of the reconstruction maintenance project association which has obtained the approval of the project plan or the authorization

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to this case’s health account and evidence No. 3-1 to No. 4, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff obtained the approval of the project plan and the approval of the project implementation on June 23, 2003, which was prior to July 1, 2003, when the Urban Improvement Act was enforced, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot exercise its right to demand the sale under the Urban Improvement Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for sale of the land in this case under the Urban Improvement Act is without merit without any further review on the remaining points.

(2) Determination on a claim for sale under the Aggregate Buildings Act

(A) Article 48 (4) of the Multi-unit Building Act provides that "A sectional owner who has not participated in the rebuilding resolution and has not responded to it within two months, but has participated in the rebuilding resolution may demand that each sectional owner who has participated in the rebuilding resolution sell his sectional ownership and right to use site at the market price." Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Multi-unit Building Act provides that "A sectional owner" means a person who has sectional ownership aiming at the portion of the building in Article 1 (Partitioned Ownership of Building) or 1-2 (Partitioned Ownership of Commercial Building)."

However, Article 44(2) of the Jeju Promotion Act and Article 42(3)3(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Jeju Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16764, Mar. 28, 2000) include the owners of “welfare facilities (including sites attached to the welfare facilities concerned)” as members of the reconstruction association, and Article 44-3(7) of the Jeju Promotion Act stipulate that “If the owners of old and poor housing with several buildings in a housing complex intend to reconstruct, two-thirds or more of the sectional owners and voting rights by each building in the housing complex and four-thirds or more of the total sectional owners and voting rights within the housing complex should be determined by the Presidential Decree No. 18146, Nov. 29, 2003.”

Based on the above provisions, the owner of “welfare facilities (including the site attached to the welfare facilities concerned)” constructed within a single housing complex may be deemed as a person holding the qualification of a reconstruction association member and as a sectional owner with one welfare facility consent under Article 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings. As such, with respect to the “welfare facilities” located within the housing complex as a religious facility, there is no particular dispute between the parties or there may be recognized by the aforementioned facts (Article 3 subparag. 7 of the State Promotion Act, “welfare facilities” means children’s playgrounds and other common facilities necessary for the welfare of residents, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 5 subparag. 2 of the Regulations on the Standards for Housing Construction (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16559, Sep. 29, 199) includes “ religious assembly under subparagraph 5 (a) of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act and other welfare facilities”, and ultimately, whether the instant church site attached to the instant church site can be seen as a problem without the building site attached to the instant church site.

(B) First of all, although the church building of this case does not actually exist, as to whether the site of this case can be seen as the annexed site to the church of this case, even if the situation of the same kind as the right to preserve is realized by the execution of the so-called short-term provisional disposition, it is nothing more than a provisional one, so in the lawsuit on the merits of this case, it shall be decided without considering such provisional condition (Supreme Court Decision 95Da2570 delivered on December 23, 1996). Since the church building of this case was removed by the execution of the decision of decision of acceptance, it shall be decided as to whether the site of this case is the annexed site to the church of this case without considering the condition of removal of the building of this case.

(C) Next, with respect to whether the instant church site can be seen as a site attached to the instant church building, which is a welfare facility, the following circumstances acknowledged by the health stand, the facts recognized above, and adopted evidence, i.e., ① the instant church building is one parcel of land, and the instant church building is in the form of a canter, and the instant church site is surrounding the instant church building, and it seems that the instant church site is being provided for the convenience of the use of the instant church building when considering the form of the land, ② the instant church building is used as a church building, and ② the remaining parts of the instant church site, other than the instant church building, which the instant church building was continuously demanded to sell the instant church building from around 190 to the Seoul Urban Development Corporation from around 190, are the necessary parts for the convenience of the use of the instant church building, and ③ It seems that the instant church building is still the object of the instant church building's use and use of the instant church site before the Seoul Urban Development Corporation actually sells the instant church site.

(3) Exercise of a claim for sale and establishment of a sales contract

(A) According to the facts and relevant laws and regulations as seen earlier, the instant reconstruction project is a case where the entire building in one complex is reconstructed en bloc. At the time of the authorization for the alteration of the reconstruction association on July 30, 2001, a rebuilding resolution meeting the requirements set forth in the Jeju Promotion Act, including the entire consent rate of the temporarily-run apartment and the commercial building, and the consent rate by each building, etc., was submitted. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the items of evidence Nos. 6 through 8, 9-1, 2, and 12, welfare facilities are included in the total number of union members and the fact that the instant church belonging to the Defendant included in the total number of union members. Thus, at the above point, it appears that a legitimate rebuilding resolution meeting the quorum set forth in the Jeju Promotion Act was established (whether there was a legitimate rebuilding resolution or not, there is no dispute between the parties).

(B) On July 5, 2006, after the rebuilding resolution under the above paragraph (a) above, the Defendant received the registration of ownership transfer for the shares in this case from the church of this case on July 5, 2006. Thus, the Defendant becomes the party to the exercise of the right to claim sale of the land in this case pursuant to Article 48 (4) of the Aggregate Buildings Act. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he would not participate in the said rebuilding on September 28, 2006 and did not reverse it until two months elapse from the reply period stipulated under Article 48 (2) of the Aggregate Buildings Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was able to exercise the right to claim sale of the land in this case by the Plaintiff and the Defendant through the exercise of the right to claim sale, and the right to claim sale is deemed to have been concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

However, since the fact that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case against the defendant on October 19, 2006 and the duplicate of the complaint was served on the defendant on November 7, 2006 without the lapse of the response period, it is evident that the plaintiff had been served on the defendant on the records that the plaintiff had been served on the defendant, even before the lapse of 2 months from the response period, the plaintiff would be entitled to exercise the right to demand sale by filing the lawsuit in this case before the lapse of 2 months from the response period. However, even in this case, as long as the plaintiff had already passed a legitimate rebuilding resolution and peremptory notice at the time of filing the lawsuit, the right to demand sale was caused by the other party's non-participation as the condition for rescission of the contract. Thus, the next day of the reply period (2 months from the arrival date of the above

Therefore, after the delivery of the complaint of this case containing an expression of intent to request sale by the plaintiff to the defendant, the sales contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant was concluded on November 29, 2005, which was the day after two months from September 28, 2006, which was the date of arrival of the peremptory notice and the date after September 28, 2006.

[On the other hand, Article 48 (1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act provides that the peremptory notice on whether to participate in the reconstruction for the exercise of the right to demand sale shall be made without delay after the rebuilding resolution is adopted. It may be problematic whether the plaintiff's peremptory notice to the defendant on September 28, 2006, much more than that of July 30, 2001, which satisfies the requirements for legitimate rebuilding resolution, is legitimate. However, it shall be determined in accordance with social norms to determine whether the plaintiff's peremptory notice to the defendant without delay within a certain period after rebuilding resolution is adopted. Since the church of this case completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the share in this case on June 17, 2004, the plaintiff notified the defendant to respond to whether to participate in the reconstruction of this case on December 10, 204, and the plaintiff won the above peremptory notice to the defendant as to the above share in this case and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the plaintiff's right to demand sale after the expiration of the judgment 206.36.6.6

(C) Furthermore, the sale contract is deemed to have been concluded on the basis of the market price at the time of establishment of the sale contract where the Plaintiff’s right to demand sale is exercised, and the sale contract is deemed to have been concluded on the basis of the market price at the time of establishment of the sale contract. The fact that the market price of the dispute in this case is equivalent to KRW 9,105,360,000 in the status of reconstruction being promoted on November 29, 2006, which is the date of establishment of the sale contract in this case, is as seen earlier, and as long as the market price at the stage of reconstruction includes the development gains anticipated to be incurred by reconstruction in calculating the market price, the sale contract in this case shall be deemed to have been established on the basis of the amount of money calculated on the basis that the development gains expected to be generated by reconstruction are also included in calculating the market price.

(4) Whether a claim for the transfer of ownership of basic property of an incorporated foundation is filed

(A) The defendant is a foundation corporation. The facts that the shares in the dispute in this case were incorporated into the defendant's basic property as the foundation corporation are above. The matters concerning the basic property of the foundation corporation are stated in the articles of incorporation and the modification of the basic property is subject to the approval of the competent Minister, and therefore the act of disposing of the existing basic property is valid only when the approval of the competent Minister is required (Supreme Court Decision 90Da8558 delivered on May 28, 191, etc.).

However, if there exists a legal relationship which serves as the basis for the claim for the performance of the ownership transfer registration procedure, and the possibility of the occurrence of the claim is sufficient according to the permission of the next competent authority, the buyer may request the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure under the conditions of permission of the competent authority, as long as it is necessary to request in advance (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da27988 delivered on July 24, 1998).

(B) As to the instant case, as seen in paragraph (3) above, since the Defendant had a duty to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant shares upon the Plaintiff’s exercise of the Plaintiff’s right to sell, the legal relationship that forms the basis for the Defendant’s right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer exists; ② as seen earlier, the instant dispute site is included in the rebuilding project area and the approval for reconstruction project is granted following the rebuilding resolution; ③ the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: (i) the number of evidence Nos. 3-1 through 4, 7, 8, and 10-1 and 2, the Defendant’s claim for the registration of ownership transfer to the instant church, which currently occupies and uses the instant site, is not sufficient to ensure the Plaintiff’s right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer to the church site in the new project area; and (ii) the surrounding roads are planned to be a road within a width of 6 meters; and (iii) there is no possibility that the Plaintiff’s claim for the registration of ownership transfer from the instant church site to another area.

(5) Determination on a request for a change in the articles of incorporation to the competent authority

(A) Determination as to the Plaintiff’s cause of claim

The facts that the defendant is a non-profit incorporated foundation established and operated pursuant to Article 32 of the Civil Act and the facts that the shares in the dispute in this case are registered as the defendant's basic property under the defendant's articles of incorporation. As seen above, Articles 40 and 43 of the Civil Act provide that the basic property of the incorporated foundation shall be the necessary matters to be stated in the articles of incorporation. Articles 45 (3) and 42 (2) of the same Act provide that the amendment of the articles of incorporation of the incorporated foundation shall not be effective without obtaining permission from the competent authority. Thus, the defendant, a incorporated foundation, shall obtain permission from the competent authority following the amendment of articles of incorporation in order to dispose of the

Therefore, in order for the Plaintiff to have the ownership transfer registration for the shares in this case completed by the Defendant pursuant to this decision, it is necessary to first permit the competent authority to amend the articles of incorporation following the Defendant’s disposition of the Defendant’s fundamental property. As such, the Defendant is obligated to implement to the Plaintiff an application procedure for permission to amend the articles of incorporation following the sale of fundamental property, which read “the seller, the Plaintiff, and the buyer, on November 29, 2

(B) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

① First of all, in a case where the Plaintiff cannot bring a lawsuit against the Plaintiff regarding the procedure for filing an application for permission to amend articles of incorporation with the competent authority in disposing of his/her basic property, and the Plaintiff fails to perform his/her obligation to file an application for permission to amend articles of incorporation necessary therefor with the competent authority, the other party to the disposition may file a petition for a judgment in lieu of an application for permission pursuant to Article 389(2) of the Civil Act (where the original or a certified copy of the judgment was received in lieu of such expression of intent and submitted to the competent authority, the original or a certified copy of the judgment shall be deemed to have been filed directly by the foundation

② Next, even if the Plaintiff was rendered a favorable judgment to comply with the procedure for filing an application for change of the articles of incorporation following the sale of fundamental property, the competent authority is not necessarily required to permit the above application, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above request for a trial is not allowed on the ground that the competent authority is not necessarily required to permit the Plaintiff’s request (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da62478, May 9, 1995, etc.). Therefore, the above argument by the Defendant is without merit without examining the remainder of the argument.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, (1) The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above 9,105,360,00 won, which is the market price as of November 29, 2006, to the plaintiff with respect to the share in the dispute in this case, on the condition that the plaintiff, the seller is permitted to amend the articles of incorporation in accordance with the "sale of Fundamental Property with the date of sale of Basic Property as of November 29, 2006," and at the same time, the plaintiff is paid the above 9,105,360,00 won, which is the market price as of November 29, 2006, and to transfer the title of this case to the competent authority. (2) In addition, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the plaintiff, the seller, the defendant, and the sale date of this case to the court for approval for the amendment of the articles of incorporation in accordance with the sale of basic property as of November 29, 2006. Thus, the plaintiff's claim in this case is without merit.

[Attachment Form Omission]

Judges Lee Hyun-soo (Presiding Judge)