사과광고 등
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial.
(1) For the management of B apartment complex 9 in Seo-gu, Daejeon, the Defendant is a non-corporate body established under the relevant laws and regulations, such as Article 43 of the Housing Act and Article 50(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, etc., and the Plaintiff was the representative of the Dong Dong-gu, 908 apartment complex from June 1, 2007 to the Defendant’s vice-chairperson.
(2) From July 13, 2007, the Plaintiff pointed out to the effect that the alteration of the consignment management company’s entrustment period and the increase in employee salary was erroneous in relation to the Defendant’s audit results conducted for two days from July 13, 2007. At that time, Dong 902 representative D should not participate in the audit by the Plaintiff who was not in the position of the auditor.
(3) On September 2007, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Daejeon Western Police Station on the charge of occupational breach of trust and interference with business with business, and filed an additional complaint against D on the charge of interference with business with 18th of the same month, E E, and 10 members including F, etc. from the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office on January 28, 2008, with personal opinion that the Plaintiff did not have the authority to audit the audit report on D and E from the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office on January 28, 2008, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff interfered with business by preventing the Plaintiff from passing a resolution and public announcement of the audit report through fraudulent means. On the part raising the entrusted management fees and the basic salary for employees, it is reasonable procedure for the portion raising the amount, and it cannot be deemed that the amount is excessive compared to other ones, and the decision to dismiss the remaining 10 suspects was made (No. 48094, 208 type 2694).
2.4. Filing an appeal; however, the same year;
5. 7. The Daejeon High Court rendered a decision of dismissal by the Seocho High Court 2008 Seocho Jae-97.
(4) On January 31, 2008, D is against the Plaintiff on the ground that the honor of the representatives of other buildings, who are members of the Defendant, was deteriorated due to the Plaintiff’s complaint.