임대료
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments to the new argument of the defendant in the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of
2. The addition;
A. The defendant asserts that in order to establish a regional housing association, the defendant's party ability shall obtain approval from the competent authority in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, but the defendant association failed to obtain such approval and failed to perform the projects promoted by the defendant association, and the defendant association has no substance as an organization, and thus,
Article 52 of the Civil Procedure Act recognizes the capacity of a non-corporate association as a party to a non-corporate association even if it has an entity as an association or foundation and conducts social activities or transactions through its representative or manager, the dispute arising therefrom is the name of that organization and the dispute arising therefrom is to be resolved through a lawsuit.
The term "association" refers to a group of many persons organized for a certain purpose, which has a provision regarding an organization to externally represent an association.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da4504, Apr. 23, 1999). According to the Housing Act, a resident who resides in a certain area intends to establish a regional housing association in order to acquire a house shall obtain authorization from the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu.
However, according to the result of fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance on the head of Busan Shipping Authority, the fact that the defendant union applied for establishment authorization to the head of Busan Shipping Authority and rejected it.
However, according to the above fact-finding results, the fact-finding results on the K non-real estate trust corporation of the court of first instance, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant is under the Housing Act.