beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.12 2015나47876

입찰참가보증금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court's explanation on this case are as follows: (a) even if there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the representative of the defendant association in this case to convert the bid bond of this case into the loan of this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a resolution by the general meeting of the defendant association members with regard to the conversion into the loan of this case into the loan of this case, and thus, the conversion into the loan of this case is null and void. Therefore, in light of the fact that there was no agreement to convert into the valid loan of this case, the plaintiff's assertion premised on the premise that there was no ground for the agreement to convert into the loan of this case into the loan of this case is without merit (in the account book of the plaintiff, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff and the defendant association agreed to convert the bid bond of this case into the loan of this case into the loan of this case. (b) in light of the above legal principles, there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise) 'B', the representative of the plaintiff and the defendant association in this case.

Even if there is no resolution of the general meeting of the defendant association members, the above agreement is null and void. According to the evidence No. 2, the audit report of the defendant association, which was the data of the general meeting of shareholders in 2013, stated the bid bond of this case as long-term loans. However, it is still short to confirm the fact that the above facts were acknowledged that there was an agreement to convert the bid bond of this case into the loan, and that there was a resolution of the general meeting of the defendant association members, and the defendant association requested the plaintiff to confirm whether or not the bid bond was recovered on May 22, 2013.