[2] In a case where Eul et al., who was unable to register as an officer of the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association Eul et al, sought confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of appointment of executive officers against Gap association, the case holding that Gap association limited the number of candidates by limiting the number of candidates according to the invalid articles of association without a legitimate election commission, and thereby, the resolution of appointment was null and void on the ground that Gap association's restriction of qualification as a candidate was considerably infringed upon the freedom of

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. In a case where some errors were found in the procedures for election management regarding the election of executives of a reconstruction and redevelopment cooperative, the determination of invalidity of the election resolution should be made in consideration of whether such errors interfered with the free decision, thereby seriously impairing the freedom and fairness, and thereby affecting the result of the election resolution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da102533, Oct. 25, 2012).

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the defendant elected the non-party 1 to the head of the association, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 4. The non-party 5 held an extraordinary general meeting on January 19, 207 and resolved to dismiss the plaintiffs and the non-party 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 4 from the head of the association. The non-party 5 held an extraordinary general meeting on February 28, 2007 and passed a resolution to appoint the non-party 5 as the head of the association (hereinafter referred to as "the first dismissal and appointment resolution"), the non-party 5 who was elected as the head of the association on February 29, 2008, and the non-party 2, who was dismissed from the above extraordinary general meeting, shall not be appointed by the defendant, and the new articles of association shall not be appointed by the non-party 2, the non-party 9, who was appointed by the election management committee under the name of the non-party 2.

According to the above circumstances, the term of office of election management members elected at the 10th council of the above 10th council was terminated in accordance with the above election management regulations because the special general meeting for the election of officers held on October 29, 2009, which is the pertinent election affairs, was not held as seen earlier, and the defendant should have organized a new election management commission for the election affairs concerning the appointment of officers at the general meeting of this case where approximately one year has passed thereafter, but the election management commission composed of election management members whose term of office has expired in violation of the above election management regulations had them take charge of the election management regulations, so the resolution for the appointment of the elected members by the election management committee implemented without a legitimate election management commission was defective in its procedure.

Furthermore, the following circumstances revealed by the record: (a) there is no evidence suggesting that the defendant widely known the number of candidates and the number of directors, unlike the public announcement of recruitment of candidates for the above candidate; (b) the head of the association and the directors elected in the resolution of appointment of this case are suitable for the number of candidates; (c) prior executives dismissed in the second dismissal resolution, including the plaintiffs, could not be registered by the amended articles of association; (d) other union members could not be limited by the public announcement of recruitment of candidates; and (e) the other union members could have restricted the opportunity of candidate by the public announcement of recruitment of candidates; and (e) the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit that the resolution of the general meeting of February 29, 2008 by the defendant changing the above articles of association was null and void, and subsequently won at the appellate court; and (e) the above decision became final and conclusive by the defendant's final and conclusive appeal by Supreme Court Decision 2011Da3630 Decided October 27, 2014; (e) the defendant did not have clearly affected the freedom of candidate and qualifications of this case.

C. Therefore, the lower court’s conclusion that the instant appointment resolution was null and void is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience and the principle of free evaluation of evidence, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

This part of the ground of appeal is with respect to the lower court’s additional judgment, and its propriety cannot affect the conclusion of the judgment, and it is not acceptable without further review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)