[1] The quorum for the modification of the rebuilding resolution, which is the contents of an agreement deemed as an agreement pursuant to Article 49 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings

[2] Whether a rebuilding resolution under Article 47 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings can be adopted by a written resolution under Article 41 (1) of the same Act (affirmative), and whether it is necessary to convene and hold a management body meeting in making such written resolution (negative)

[3] Method of determining matters concerning the apportionment of rebuilding expenses under Article 47 (3) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings

[4] In the case of rebuilding of a number of apartment buildings in a single complex, if the building does not meet the requirements for a rebuilding resolution in some Dongs, but the rest of the building meets the requirements for a rebuilding resolution, whether the right to demand sale can be exercised against the sectional owner who did not consent to the rebuilding resolution among the remaining sectional owners (affirmative)

[1] Articles 47(2) and (3), and 49 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings / [2] Articles 41(1) and 47 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings / [3] Articles 47(3)2 and 3 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings / [4] Articles 47 and 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Da4969 Delivered on April 21, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 746), Supreme Court Decision 2004Da3864 Delivered on June 23, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1217), Supreme Court Decision 2004Da17924 Delivered on October 26, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1957) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Da17572 Delivered on August 20, 209, Supreme Court Decision 2003Da26289 Delivered on May 13, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2003Da4969 Delivered on April 21, 2005 (Gong209, Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Da364579 Delivered on April 26, 2005)

Plaintiff Apartment Reconstruction Association (Law Firm Geosung, Attorneys Choi Young-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na33406, 33413 decided October 27, 2005

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

The court below judged that the rebuilding resolution of August 23, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the "rebuilding resolution of this case") is valid, and judged that the circumstances pointed out by the defendants additionally, namely, the increased share of expenses of the association members calculated in 2004 compared to the year 2001 when considering the increased share of land price, and the increase in the business expenses of the plaintiff association without approval from the general meeting, does not constitute a ground for the defendants who are not the plaintiff's union members, and that the above circumstances do not exist as to whether the requirements for re-building resolution of Article 47 (3) and (4) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "Aggregate Buildings Act") are met or not. The court below's determination that the re-building resolution of this case is valid, as seen below, is justified, and therefore, the judgment of the court below is not affected by the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the above defendant's assertion in the grounds of appeal by the above defendant is not acceptable.

2. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal Nos. 3 and 4

In modifying the contents of rebuilding resolution, which is an agreement deemed to have been agreed upon pursuant to Article 49 of the Multi-Family Building Act, it is necessary to apply Article 47 (2) of the same Act, which provides for the quorum at the time of rebuilding resolution, to 4/5 or more of its members by analogy (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Da4969 delivered on April 21, 2005, etc.). In addition, in the case of complementary resolution or new resolution, it is not different from the quorum. The plaintiff asserted that the rebuilding resolution in this case is valid, and it does not claim that the rebuilding resolution in this case is valid as a new resolution, and therefore, the court below is just in holding that the rebuilding resolution in this case is valid as a new resolution, and there is no violation of law as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 5

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just for the court below to reject the defense of the above defendant's main defense on the duplicate lawsuit, and there is no violation of law as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

4. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal Nos. 6 and Defendant 2

According to the provisions of Articles 41(1) and 47 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, a resolution for reconstruction under Article 47 can also be adopted in writing under Article 41(1). Accordingly, if there is an agreement in writing with the sectional owners and at least 4/5 of voting rights, it shall be deemed that there exists a resolution at the managing body's meeting. The above written resolution is intended to treat the same as that at the managing body's meeting without being opened, and it is natural that there is no need for the meeting to convene and hold such written resolution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da17572, Aug. 20, 199; 2003Da2628, May 13, 2003), and Article 47(3) of the same Act provides that if a resolution for reconstruction is adopted at the market price of the building, the matters concerning the removal of the building and the allotment of sectional ownership and the criteria for the sale of rebuilding expenses shall be determined by the Supreme Court's decision 209.

In addition, in the case of rebuilding of a number of apartment buildings in one aggregate housing complex, some buildings do not meet the requirements for rebuilding resolution, but in the case that the rest of buildings meet the requirements for rebuilding resolution, there are legitimate rebuilding resolution, so that the rest of the buildings is entitled to exercise the right to demand sale against the sectional owners who did not consent to rebuilding resolution among the remaining sectional owners (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da63084, Jun. 23, 200; 2003Da5455, Jun. 24, 2005).

In light of the above legal principles and records, even if the rebuilding resolution of this case was conducted in writing without holding a meeting, it satisfies the quorum, and it can be deemed that the court below determined that the matters concerning the allocation of rebuilding cost, such as the basis for calculating the unit sale price and the price of the apartment, the appraised value of the existing apartment, the ratio of sectional owners' gratuitous shares, the amount to be additionally borne or to be refunded, or the criteria for calculating the unit rebuilding cost, should be determined to the extent that it would not be decided later again. The defendants are the sectional owners of the apartment that has a legitimate rebuilding resolution under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, not the owner of the commercial building, and the defendants' exercise of the right to demand sale against the defendants is justifiable, and there is no

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)