According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the first instance that found the defendant guilty of using 4.4 million won of the attorney's fees in the above application case without a general meeting's resolution, on the ground that the use of attorney's fees in relation to the application case for suspension of performance of duties and provisional disposition against the defendant who is the head of the association of this case, which is the partnership of this case, constitutes "use of the rearrangement project costs" under Article 24 (3) 4 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as

However, such determination by the court below is difficult to accept.

Article 24 (3) 4 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas provides that "use of rearrangement project costs shall be subject to the resolution of the general meeting, and Article 85 (3) 5 of the same Act provides that "executives of the association which voluntarily promotes the projects under each subparagraph of paragraph (3) of the same Article without going through the resolution of the general meeting under Article 24" shall be subject to punishment. In light of the contents of the above provision and legislative intent, specific execution of the budget already passed through the resolution of the general meeting shall not be included in "use of rearrangement project costs" under Article 24 (3) 4 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Areas to be

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, Article 21 of the articles of association of the association of this case provides that "the plan for the use of rearrangement project costs, etc." shall be subject to the resolution of the general meeting. Article 28 provides that "matters concerning the budget and the execution of ordinary business of the association" shall be the affairs of the board of directors. The association of this case decided the budget bill of 2008 at the general meeting. The budget of this case was set at the meeting's expense as 29 million won, reserve fund of 17,413,1209 won. The defendant appointed a lawyer in accordance with the resolution of the board of directors in order to respond to the provisional disposition for the suspension of the execution of duties raised against the officers of the association of this case including himself. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's use of attorney's expenses as above is merely the execution of the budget within the scope of the budget decided for the urgent performance of duties of the association of this case, and in light of the size and the timing of use, it is not any other item.

Thus, although the use of the attorney fee of this case does not correspond to the "use of the rearrangement project cost" under Article 24 (3) 4 of the Urban Improvement Act that requires the resolution of the general meeting, the court below deemed the use of the attorney fee of this case as the use of the rearrangement project cost that requires the resolution of the general meeting and found the defendant guilty of the charges of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 24 (3) 4 of the

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Lee In-bok et al.