beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.09.21 2018누36020

청산금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed or added in part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justifiable in light of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff to this court, and there is no error as alleged by the plaintiff, except for addition of the judgment that there is no error as alleged by the plaintiff.

Therefore, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

8 Myeon 1's "Article 24 (11)" shall be changed to "Article 24 (3) 11."

In 9 pages 4 through 5, “No assertion or proof exists as to the reporting of a changed address,” the phrase “B is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants reported the changed address prior to the delivery of each registered mail as of December 8, 2015 and January 4, 2016, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.”

The following is added to “(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du11951, Sept. 6, 2007).”

11. The 4th parallel "Nos. 5 through 7" shall be raised as "Nos. 3, 5 through 7".

11.For the last part of the 16th page, the following shall be added:

It is difficult to see that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was a situation in which it was impossible to perform its duties as the chairperson of the election management commission because the qualification of the general director of the L general director was problematic at the time, and as long as the election management was conducted in the name of L general director under the name of L general director in the situation where L general director did not perform his duties as the chairperson of the election management, it is difficult to view it as legitimate election of the president of the association. Therefore, even if other directors performed election management as election management members, it is difficult to conclude that the resolution of the president of the association was lawful in accordance with the