Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Pre-meeting notice limited to the notified member's own figures
Supreme Court, Dec. 11, 2025, 2022Du46244 (judgment)
Case name: 총회결의무효확인
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under Articles 74(1) and 74(3) of the former Urban and Residential Environment Maintenance Act, do the items 'the estimated value of the land or building to be allocated to each allocation target' and 'the list and price of each allocation target's pre-existing land or building', which the union must notify in writing to each member one month before the general meeting, mean only the content concerning the member receiving the notice, or must they also include content concerning all other union members and allocation targets?
Holding
It means only the content about the member who receives the notice. The words 'each allocation target' and 'each' read together in the context of the whole provision point to that member's own estimated asset value and the list and price of his pre-existing land or building, and the point of the rule is to let each member check the value of his own assets and his expected contribution, not to hand over every allocation target's figures as decision material. Because Articles 124(1)(v) and 124(4) and Article 78(1) of the former Act already let a member inspect the plan and put his views to the union, the court below erred in reading the notice obligation the other way.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
위 통지규정에서 통지 의무를 부과하고 있는 사항인 ‘분양대상자별 분양예정자산의 추산액’과 ‘분양대상자별 종전자산 명세 및 가격’은 통지를 받는 해당 조합원에 관한 내용만을 의미하고, 다른 조합원 또는 분양대상자에 관한 내용까지 이에 포함된다고 볼 것은 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
'The estimated amount of the assets scheduled for sale for each person subject to sale' and 'the statement and price of the assets held prior to the project by each person subject to sale', which are the matters for which the above notice provision imposes a duty of notification, mean only the contents concerning the union member receiving the notification, and it cannot be regarded that the contents concerning other union members or persons subject to sale are included therein as well.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
위 통지규정에서 통지 의무를 부과하고 있는 사항인 ‘분양대상자별 분양예정자산의 추산액’과 ‘분양대상자별 종전자산 명세 및 가격’은 통지를 받는 해당 조합원에 관한 내용만을 의미하고, 다른 조합원 또는 분양대상자에 관한 내용까지 이에 포함된다고 볼 것은 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
'The estimated amount of the assets scheduled for sale for each person subject to sale' and 'the statement and price of the assets held prior to the project by each person subject to sale', which are the matters for which the above notice provision imposes a duty of notification, mean only the contents concerning the union member receiving the notification, and it cannot be regarded that the contents concerning other union members or persons subject to sale are included therein as well.
Factors
- 제74조 제3항(이하 ‘통지규정’이라 한다)에 따르면, 조합은 관리처분계획 수립 등을 의결하기 위한 총회 개최일부터 1개월 전에 위 각 사항 등을 각 조합원에게 문서로 통지하여야 한다.
- 통지를 받는 해당 조합원에 관한 내용만을 의미하고
- 다른 조합원 또는 분양대상자에 관한 내용까지 이에 포함된다고 볼 것은 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
• Under Article 74 paragraph (3) (hereinafter referred to as the 'notice provision'), the association must notify each union member in writing of each of the above matters, etc. no later than one month before the date of the general meeting held to resolve on the establishment, etc. of a management disposition plan.
• mean only the contents concerning the union member receiving the notification, and
• it cannot be regarded that the contents concerning other union members or persons subject to sale are included therein as well.
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2012. 8. 23. 선고 2010두13463 판결 참조
Unofficial English translation
see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du13463 decided August 23, 2012
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the estimated value of a member's own allocation asset, once notified, turns out to be materially wrong, does that mistake alone make the resolution liable to cancellation for a serious defect?
The retrial by the Seoul High Court after 11 December 2025 will show how the notice rule is applied on a full record. Any later decision construing the notice under Article 74(5) of the current Act, or a special provision in a union's articles of association requiring the figures for all allocation targets, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “Follows earlier decisions” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary may treat the statutory interpretation as following established precedent, while the independent may reserve judgment because the supplied text identifies no prior decision.
대법원 2012. 8. 23. 선고 2010두13463 판결 참조Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the estimated value of a member's own allocation asset, once notified, turns out to be materially wrong, does that mistake alone make the resolution liable to cancellation for a serious defect?” vs Independent “Can a member obtain other members' asset valuations through a separate disclosure procedure?”
The primary asks about cancellation for a materially erroneous valuation, while the independent asks about obtaining other members' valuations through separate disclosure.
위 통지규정에서 통지 의무를 부과하고 있는 사항인 ‘분양대상자별 분양예정자산의 추산액’과 ‘분양대상자별 종전자산 명세 및 가격’은 통지를 받는 해당 조합원에 관한 내용만을 의미하고, 다른 조합원 또는 분양대상자에 관한 내용까지 이에 포함된다고 볼 것은 아니다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 9 June 2022 (2021Nu66434), accepted the claim of the plaintiff, a member of the redevelopment union. It held that the union had notified each member on 7 November 2018 only of that member's own estimated asset value and the list and price of his pre-existing assets, and had not notified the figures for all allocation targets, so the draft management disposal plan was put to the vote of 8 December 2018 without them, infringing the members' substantive voting rights. It therefore found a serious defect in the resolution and granted the claim to cancel the management disposal plan approved and publicly announced by the head of Seongdong-gu on 30 August 2019.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misread the scope of the notice obligation. The two items mean only the content concerning the member notified, so the omission of the other members' figures did not infringe the substantive voting rights, and because that error affected the judgment the whole judgment was reversed and the case remanded to the Seoul High Court for retrial, by the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where a statute, the articles of association or another special provision requires the convening notice to carry the specific content of an agenda item or the materials behind it, since the Court stated its reading for a case where no such special provision exists.
- Where the member cannot inspect the plan figures before the meeting, since one of the Court's reasons was that Articles 124 and 78 of the former Act already provide channels for inspection and public display.
Record verification notes
Set the notice document of 7 November 2018 against the point decided here: it should show that the estimated value and the list and price of the member who received it were stated, because the Court's reading rests on that member being able to check his own figures. Confirm which version of the Act governs, since the Court applied Articles 74(1) and 74(3) as they stood before the amendment of 16 March 2021 (Law No. 17943) and referred to current Article 74(5). Then look for any special provision in the union's articles of association and for the inspection and public display record under Articles 124 and 78, since the availability of those channels is one of the reasons the Court gave for its reading. Also note that the source's case name reads 'confirmation of the invalidity of a general meeting resolution', while the relief the decision describes and the court below granted is cancellation of the management disposal plan, so the relief actually sought in your own file should be checked against the operative text rather than the case name.
From the official text
Points at issue
구 도시 및 주거환경정비법 제74조 제1항, 제3항에 따라 관리처분계획 수립 등을 의결하기 위한 총회 개최 전에 각 조합원에게 통지해야 할 사항인 ‘분양대상자별 분양예정자산의 추산액’, ‘분양대상자별 종전자산 명세 및 가격’의 범위
Unofficial English translation
The scope of the matters that must be notified to each union member before the general meeting is held to resolve on the establishment, etc. of a management disposition plan pursuant to Article 74 paragraphs (1) and (3) of the former Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments, namely 'the estimated amount of the assets scheduled for sale for each person subject to sale' and 'the statement and price of the assets held prior to the project by each person subject to sale'
Summary of the holding
구 도시 및 주거환경정비법(2021. 3. 16. 법률 제17943호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제74조 제1항 본문 전단에 따르면, 사업시행자는 분양신청기간이 종료된 때에는 분양신청의 현황을 기초로 ‘분양대상자별 분양예정인 대지 또는 건축물(이하 ‘분양예정자산’이라 한다)의 추산액’(제3호), ‘분양대상자별 종전의 토지 또는 건축물 명세 및 사업시행계획인가 고시가 있은 날을 기준으로 한 가격(이하 ‘종전자산 명세 및 가격’이라 한다)’(제5호) 등이 포함된 관리처분계획을 수립하여 시장·군수 등의 인가를 받아야 한다. 제74조 제3항(이하 ‘통지규정’이라 한다)에 따르면, 조합은 관리처분계획 수립 등을 의결하기 위한 총회 개최일부터 1개월 전에 위 각 사항 등을 각 조합원에게 문서로 통지하여야 한다. 위 통지규정에서 통지 의무를 부과하고 있는 사항인 ‘분양대상자별 분양예정자산의 추산액’과 ‘분양대상자별 종전자산 명세 및 가격’은 통지를 받는 해당 조합원에 관한 내용만을 의미하고, 다른 조합원 또는 분양대상자에 관한 내용까지 이에 포함된다고 볼 것은 아니다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
구 도시 및 주거환경정비법(2021. 3. 16. 법률 제17943호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제74조 제1항, 제3항(현행 제74조 제5항 참조)
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger