재산처분총회결의 무효확인 등의 소
1. The plaintiff C's lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The Defendant shall consult with AA Co., Ltd on public land of 288,694 square meters of forest land at the time of leisure water.
1. Judgment on the main defense of this case
A. In a lawsuit for confirmation of the legitimacy of the Plaintiff C’s lawsuit, the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights is required, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized when receiving a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger and danger.
Plaintiff
C With respect to the Defendant, an unincorporated association, a non-corporate association, filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a resolution of the general assembly (hereinafter “resolution of the instant sales contract”) or confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the instant sales contract, where the Defendant entered into a contract to sell public land to AA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) for the purpose of acquiring public land through consultation (hereinafter “the resolution of the instant sales contract”) and the Defendant agreed to sell the instant real estate to A for the purpose of acquiring public land and distribute the purchase price received by the Defendant to its members for the purpose of acquiring public land consultation (hereinafter “the resolution of the instant sales contract”).
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Plaintiff C is a member of the Defendant, and there is no circumstance to deem that Plaintiff C, who is not a member of the Defendant, obtained the instant sales contract resolution and the judgment of absence or invalidation of the resolution on distribution of the sales price of this case as the most effective means to remove Plaintiff C’s rights or legal status in danger and danger.
Therefore, Plaintiff C cannot be deemed to have standing to seek confirmation of absence or invalidation of the resolution of the instant sales contract and the resolution of distribution of the purchase price of this case. Therefore, Plaintiff C’s lawsuit is unlawful.
B. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff B did not have standing to sue since the Plaintiff B received allocation of KRW 13 million out of the purchase price of the instant real estate, but the Plaintiff’s members did not have special circumstances.