2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 250,000,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause thereof to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff changed the primary and preliminary claim in the first instance trial to the day of complete payment).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed (the first instance court accepted the plaintiff's primary claims, and the defendant appealed against them, but the plaintiff changed the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims into one claim and changed the lawsuit to exchange them with one claim, so it is unnecessary to separately determine the defendant's appeal, and the above part of the claim as stated above changed in exchange at the trial is subject to the judgment of this court).

A. The defendant is a non-corporate association consisting of 17 representatives from each building of the occupants of the substitute forest apartment located in Jeju-si (hereinafter referred to as the "the apartment of this case").

B. On December 17, 2007, the Defendant decided to select a gas supply business entity of the apartment of this case as a means of an agreement of two-thirds or more of occupants, a majority of voters, and held an explanatory meeting for the occupants of a gas supply business entity on January 2008. On January 7, 2008, the Defendant held a voting for determining Jeju Energy and one of the plaintiffs as a gas supply business entity. On January 7, 2008, the Defendant decided the Plaintiff as an apartment gas supply business entity with a total of 60 households of the apartment of this case as 471 votes (effective voting number) and 237 votes with the Plaintiff.

C. On April 3, 2008, the Defendant concluded an urban gas supply contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Plaintiff without setting the supply period.

D. Under the Convention prepared in relation to facility contributions, etc. among the contracts of this case on the same day (hereinafter “instant Convention”), the date of commencing the supply of urban gas shall be determined by mutual consultation. By the time of the supply of urban gas, the fees shall be supplied as LPG liquefied petroleum gas; the date of commencing the gas supply shall be June 1, 2008; the date of commencing the supply of urban gas shall be the heat conversion price based on the urban gas fees; and the date of commencing the supply of gas shall be June 1, 2008; the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant a total of KRW 20,000,000 as compensation for the use of the site for the use of the site for constant pressure period; and KRW 40,00,000 for the rearrangement project expenses within the complex; and KRW 5,00,000 for the apartment event expenses; and Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty 2, the representative director of the Plaintiff company) of the Defendant’s representative (the Nonparty 2, the representative of the Plaintiff company) shall provide the consent to the Plaintiff regarding the use of the site.

E. On April 28, 2008, the Plaintiff paid 40,000,000 won to the Defendant in accordance with the above agreement. From May 2, 2008 to May 31, 2008, the Plaintiff performed urban gas pipeline construction from May 2, 2008 to May 31, 2008.

F. On July 23, 2008, the Defendant decided on July 28, 2008 that the implementation of the instant contract entered into with the Defendant was impossible due to the Plaintiff’s decision to continue to use the existing LPG at the resident representative conference, and expressed the intent to terminate the instant contract. At that time, the Defendant reached the Plaintiff.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1 through 10, 11-1 through 35, 17-1 through 20-2, Eul’s evidence 1 through 9, 11, 12, 15-1 through 17, part of Eul’s evidence 18, non-party 3 and non-party 4’s testimony, the whole purport of pleadings

2. The parties' arguments and issues

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant unilaterally refused to perform the contract and provided gas from other companies. This constitutes nonperformance due to the Defendant’s fault, and thus, terminated the contract of this case by serving the Plaintiff’s application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim submitted by the Plaintiff at the trial. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate for damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to unfair reversal of the contract of this case, namely, losses equivalent to construction cost, and losses equivalent to operating profit that the Defendant could have gained if the Defendant performed the contract.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The instant contract is null and void as it was concluded in violation of the management rules of the instant apartment, and even if it is valid for household affairs, since the contract without a fixed period of time and without the free termination right is reserved for the Defendant, the instant contract was terminated by the Defendant’s notice of termination on July 23, 2008 against the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is not liable for damages as there is no cause attributable to the nonperformance and termination, and the Plaintiff’s damages are not recognized.

C. Issues

Therefore, the key issue of the instant case is whether there was a default due to the Defendant’s fault and whether the Defendant is liable for damages. Specifically, as to whether there was a default, if the instant contract was null and void, this part is first examined, and as such, if the instant contract was lawfully terminated by the Defendant, this part is not a problem in the Defendant’s liability for damages due to the Defendant’s refusal of performance, and thus, this part is also examined.

3. Determination

A. Whether the contract of this case is null and void

(1) In general, since there is no way to register the restriction on the power of representation in the case of a non-corporate company, even if the restriction on the power of representation is limited under the internal rules, it is merely an internal decision-making method, and if the transaction partner knew or could have known such restriction on the power of representation, it is reasonable to deem that the transaction is valid. In this case, the non-corporate company asserting that the other party to the transaction knew or could have known such restriction on the power of representation should assert and prove it (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da64780, Jul. 22, 2003, etc.)

Therefore, even if the contract of this case was concluded without a legitimate resolution of the non-corporate group of the defendant or the apartment occupant of this case belonging to the defendant, the defendant can assert the invalidity of the contract of this case to the plaintiff, if it is found that the plaintiff, who is the opposite party to the contract, knew or could have known such fact

(2) The case holding that, in light of the above evidence and the purport of the whole arguments, it is unclear whether the non-party 1, who entered into the contract of this case, can be seen as an incidental facility falling under Article 11 (2) of the apartment management rules, since it is difficult to view that the use purpose of apartment houses, incidental facilities, joint-use welfare facilities, reconstruction (including large-scale repair), destruction, disuse, removal, new construction, and extension should be decided with the written consent of at least 2/3 of the occupants; for the implementation of the contract of this case, the non-party 1, who had entered into the contract of this case, should remove the existing apartment house stored at the location of this case and newly install the pressure apparatus; although it is found that the non-party 2, who had entered into the contract of this case, was the same as the non-party 2's representative director, and it is still unclear whether the defendant's decision was made with the consent of at least 20 percent of the tenant's voting methods and the decision was made by the plaintiff.

B. Whether the contract of this case was lawfully terminated

(1) The instant contract is a contract without a fixed deadline, and where there are reasonable grounds to terminate a supply contract, such as a continuous supply contract’s failure to maintain and continue the supply contract as it is, it is inappropriate under social norms to have a gas user maintain and maintain the supply contract as it is. Thus, a gas user can unilaterally terminate the contract, except in extenuating circumstances, such as where the termination of the contract causes losses not to be silent due to the other party’s good faith principle to suppliers. However, in order to implement the instant contract, the circumstances requiring installation exceeding a certain size and a relatively long-term gas supply is recognized to have been anticipated. Thus, whether a reasonable ground exists for the continuous termination of the supply contract should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the circumstances leading up to the supply, the relationship between the supplier and the user, the content of the supply contract, the degree of facilities installed in advance by the gas supplier for the performance of the contract, the possibility of restoring the installed facilities, the degree of implementation of the contract, the process of termination, and the degree

(2) In the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the following facts: ① the Plaintiff’s existence of reasonable grounds for termination of the instant contract and the Defendant’s overall purport of each of the evidence and arguments as seen earlier, nearby the instant apartment site for which fixed pressure was planned to be installed, the Defendant’s motion to adjust the supply of urban gas to the Plaintiff; ② the Plaintiff’s negotiation on the price did not take place; ③ the Plaintiff’s representative at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract and the Plaintiff’s representative director’s selection of the apartment gas supply company, were pointed out that the Plaintiff’s construction of the instant apartment site was considerably less likely to cause damages to the Plaintiff; ④ the Plaintiff’s construction of the instant apartment site and the Plaintiff’s construction of the Plaintiff’s supply-based collective gas supply contract to the Plaintiff at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, and the Plaintiff’s submission of the agreement to the Plaintiff’s non-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party agreement.

(3) If so, regardless of the plaintiff's notice of termination of this case, the contract of this case is already terminated by the defendant's legitimate notice of termination. Thus, it is difficult to deem that the defendant's refusal of performance, etc., which is the cause of termination

C. Whether the damage occurred

Furthermore, even if the snow history, the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation, and the cause attributable thereto are recognized, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff suffered any loss in light of the following circumstances.

(1) As to the claim for damages caused by the installation of gas pipes

Unlike the Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) the gas pipeline, which the Plaintiff had installed due to the instant agreement, is identical in length compared to the section originally planned by the Plaintiff; (b) the gas pipeline was installed in the parallel direction only in terms of location; (c) the instant gas pipeline was an pipeline to connect the fG gas upon the introduction of the LNG gas; (d) the unnecessary gas pipeline to be laid underground at the time of introduction of the scheduled LNG gas station around 2014-2016, was laid in advance at the time of the Plaintiff, in light of the following circumstances: (i) the gas pipeline was already installed due to the instant agreement; and (iv) the gas pipeline was planned to be installed in the first direction in comparison with the area originally planned by the Plaintiff; and (iv) the Plaintiff did not have any damage to the Plaintiff, such as the Plaintiff’s scheduled gas pipeline construction at the time of the introduction of the instant apartment complex at the time of October 201 to 11, 2012.

(2) As to the claim for damages equivalent to operating profit

On the other hand, as alleged by the plaintiff, it is difficult to see that the future profit from the urban gas business has a causal relationship with the defendant's default, and it is not recognized that the future profit compensation does not have the nature of compensation for trust interest, and there is no other circumstance to recognize the loss of operating opportunity to enter into a contract with another place due to the above contract (In addition, the contract in this case cannot specify the future operating period due to the absence of the time limit, and the dispute was not established and each evidence was examined earlier. The plaintiff supplied LPG gas to the defendant after the contract in this case, the plaintiff paid the price to the defendant, the plaintiff paid the price to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff lost the qualification to supply the LPG on December 14, 2009. Thus, it is difficult to see that there was any business loss until the above day, and even if the plaintiff was supplied with the LPG gas other than the urban gas business from other companies, it cannot be seen that the plaintiff continued to seek for the loss of the above special urban gas facility investment in the above complex, as well as the supply of urban gas in this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case, which is changed in exchange at the trial, is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Donsung(Presiding Judge)

(1) Urban gas supplied by the Plaintiff is LPG/AIR gas containing 37.5% air in LPG and can be exchanged at the time of supply of LNG (e.g. liquefied natural gas) in the future.

Note 2) Each individual user’s supply of goods from another supplier through separate facilities may be difficult under the rules of the relevant multi-family housing, but such restriction is not a restriction due to the instant supply contract.