[약정금][집50(1)민,133;공2002.4.1.(151),664]
In the case of a merger under Article 4-2 of the Political Parties Act, whether it may be restricted by a resolution of a political party as to the succession of rights and obligations due to a merger (negative)
According to Article 4-2 (1) and (2) of the Political Parties Act, when a political party is merged under a new name (party newly established by merger), or when another political party is merged into another political party (party newly established by merger), the merger of the political party may be established by a resolution of a joint meeting of the representative agency of the political party engaging in the merger or its mandatory agency, and the merger of the political party is established by registration with or reporting to the National Election Commission in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Meanwhile, according to Article 4-2 (5) of the Political Parties Act, the political party newly established by or surviving the merger succeeds to the rights and obligations of the political party before the merger. In the case of the merger under Article 4-2 (1) and (2) of the said Political Parties Act, the provision on the succession of rights and obligations
Article 4-2(1), (2), and (5) of the Political Parties Act
Free Democratic Union (Attorney Lee Jae-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Defendant (Attorney Choi Chang-ro, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 2000Na18891 delivered on September 21, 2001
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
According to Article 4-2 (1) and (2) of the Political Parties Act, when a political party is merged under a new name (party newly established by merger), or when another political party is merged into another political party (party newly established by merger), the merger of the political party may be established by the resolution of a joint meeting of the representative agency of the political party that is merged or its mandatory agency, and the merger of the political party is established by registering or reporting to the National Election Commission in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Meanwhile, according to Article 4-2 (5) of the Political Parties Act, the political party newly established by or surviving the merger succeeds to the rights and obligations of the political party before the merger. In the case of the merger under Article 4-2 (1) and (2) of the Political Parties Act, the provision on the succession of rights and obligations due to the merger is a mandatory provision
The court below is just in holding that the defendant, who keeps the property of the old new political party, has a duty to return the property kept by the old new political party to the plaintiff, since the old new political party and the old new political party are merged through legitimate procedures under the Political Party Act and registered with the National Election Commission, and the plaintiff party succeeds to all the rights and obligations to the property of the political party before the merger pursuant to Article 4-2 (5) of the above Political Parties Act. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles
The court below rejected the defendant's defense that the plaintiff's political party at the time of merger took into account the complex internal circumstances of the old party, but did not succeed to the material rights and obligations related to the old party, on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the facts alleged. The grounds of appeal are disputing the violation of the rules of evidence and the incomplete hearing on this point, but the above determination by the court below is not effective even if there was an agreement as alleged above. Thus, the above determination by the court below is nothing more than unnecessary, and it cannot affect the conclusion of the court below regardless of its legitimacy. The argument in the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Cho Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)