beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.11.21 2018나2022747

관리인지위부존재확인 등

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance court, including a claim that has been reduced and added in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

Seoul.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court concerning this part of the underlying facts is as follows, except for the addition to the following: (a) from 14th to 6th 16th 16th tier of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of

[Supplementary Part] The 6th two cases of the first instance court were final and conclusive, followed by adding “the instant lawsuit” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant lawsuit”), and “the final and conclusive judgment” (hereinafter referred to as “the final and conclusive judgment”).

The 6th 7th 7th son of the judgment of the first instance court is "attached Form 3" as "attached Form 3 of this judgment."

The 6th 16th 16th e.g. “No. 6” shall be added to “(including a number; hereinafter the same shall apply).”

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Article 276(1) of the Civil Act provides that “the management and disposal of the general property shall be governed by a resolution of the general meeting of members” (Article 276(1) of the Civil Act provides that “the management and disposal of the general property shall be made by a resolution of the general meeting of members” (Article 276(1) of the Civil Act for the purpose of instituting a lawsuit concerning the property jointly owned by the Plaintiff, a non-corporate body, even though the lawsuit in question falls under the case of the lawsuit concerning the property jointly owned by the non-corporate body (Article 276(1) of the Civil Act. This is derived from the fact that the ownership of the property jointly owned is not recognized to the individual members. Thus, the preservation of the property jointly owned shall be made by a resolution of the general meeting of members unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da28437, Oct. 25, 199).