In light of all this, I determine that the existence of a majority as required by the Pinui-Binui Law is not in dispute in the present case.
- In circumstances in which I have reached the conclusion that the required majority of the apartment owners agreed to the conclusion of the agreement, I will turn to examine whether the defendants' refusal to sign the agreement is a reasonable refusal in the circumstances as defined in the Pinui-Binui Law.
The defendants base their argument that their refusal to the Pinui-Binui agreement is reasonable on three reasons - first, that the area of the apartment specified in the Pinui-Binui agreement is smaller than the actual area of the apartment according to the building permit; second, that in the area of the consideration apartment offered to them, unrealized building rights that exist for their apartment are not reflected before the project is approved; and finally, that the project is not economic.
- the likelihood of the refusal due to differences in the area of the apartments;
In other words, does the difference between the area of the defendants' apartments in accordance with what is stipulated in the Pinui-Binui agreement and their area in the building permit justify the defendants' refusal to sign the Pinui-Binui agreement?
I will begin by noting that there is no dispute - the determination of the area of the apartments in the framework of the Pinui-Binui agreement, not in accordance with the area in the building permit (but in the area close to the area registered in the Land Registry) - was not only done with respect to the defendants' apartments, but also with respect to all the apartments. Thus, all the small apartments were listed in the consideration table in the Pinui-Binui agreement as apartments with a source area of 60 square meters - even though their area in accordance with the building permit is close to 68 square meters, while all the large apartments were listed in the consideration table in the Pinui-Binui agreement as apartments with a source area of 86 square meters - even though their area in accordance with the building permit is 96.3 square meters. To this must be added the consideration apartments that are also not disputed - the consideration apartments allocated to the small apartments are identical in size and their area is 78 square meters, and the consideration apartments allocated to the large apartments are also identical in size and their area is 98 square meters. From the aforesaid - which is not in dispute - it emerges that there is no dispute that from a quantitative point of view the equality between the groups of apartments is maintained, and in addition, there is no dispute that the large apartments receive an additional area that is smaller than that of the small apartments. However, notwithstanding the aforesaid, the defendants claim that since there is a gap between the area registered in the Pinui-Binui agreement and the area in the permit, they are entitled to this difference in practice as an addition to the consideration - i.e., they are entitled to receive a consideration apartment whose area is greater than 8 square meters. I cannot accept this argument. This is because the defendants did not point to any source in the law that establishes their right to this additional area.