[주민총회결의무효확인][미간행]
[1] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that even if the committee did not go through the procedures such as the publication of the candidate registration, it cannot be deemed that the land owner's right of election or right of withdrawal was infringed upon by the chairman or auditor, even though the committee did not go through the procedures such as the publication of the candidate registration as the chairman or auditor's reappointment at the general meeting of the resident.
[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the majority of the owners of land, etc. who agreed to the composition of the promotion committee shall not be required when the resolution of the promotion committee for the housing redevelopment project and the method of financing is adopted
[1] Article 15 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 7960 of May 24, 2006) / [2] Articles 14 and 15 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 7960 of May 24, 2006), Article 23 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21679 of August 11, 2
Plaintiff
Committee for Promotion of the Establishment of Minecheon-dong Housing Redevelopment Project Cooperatives (Attorneys Kang Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Gwangju High Court Decision 2009Na609 decided October 7, 2009
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined the following facts after recognizing the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the evidence adopted. The Defendant’s operating rules shall serve the term of office of the members for up to two years from the date of appointment, but the term of office of the members may be reappointed with the attendance of a majority of the incumbent members and with the concurrent vote of at least two-thirds of the members present; the term of office of the chairman and the auditor may be decided by the resolution of the general meeting of residents; the method of appointing the promoters shall be determined by the committee; and the term of office of each Dong and household and the type of facilities shall be determined by the committee; and the matters such as the appointment, change, reappointment, etc. of the chairman and the auditor shall be determined by the resolution of the general meeting of residents after the expiration of the term of office of the chairman and the auditor’s general meeting; however, it is interpreted that the Defendant may choose the chairman, the auditor, and the auditor at the general meeting of residents without the expiration of the term of office of the Plaintiff or the chairman’s new resolution of the auditor’s appointment or the auditor’s appointment.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as claimed in the grounds for appeal.
2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2
The lower court, based on its adopted evidence, found the following facts. According to Article 14(1) and (3) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 7960, May 24, 2006; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Promotion Committee provides for the following matters: (a) the safety diagnosis application; (b) the selection of a rearrangement project management contractor; (c) the preparation of an implementation plan for an association’s establishment; and (c) other matters necessary for the establishment of an association; and (d) the preparation of an association’s establishment; and (e) the details of the affairs performed by the Promotion Committee are “where the expenses are borne by the owners of land, etc. or changes in rights and obligations involving the establishment of the association; and (e) the consent of the owners of land, etc. is required by the Promotion Committee or the preparation of a summary project implementation plan is difficult to obtain consent from the majority of the owners of land, such as the establishment of the Promotion Committee; and (e) the method of the promotion committee’s resolution and necessary matters.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the quorum, etc. as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)