회칙변경무효확인
1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The defendant is composed of only one resident of L/M village located in Gyeongnam-gun K, Chungcheongnam-gun, and the plaintiffs are the members of the defendant.
B. On February 3, 2005, the Defendant enacted the instant first rule (hereinafter “instant first rule”).
C. On April 7, 2015, the Defendant changed the Defendant’s representative from N toO, and on April 20, 2015, the Defendant applied for the registration of change of the indication of the registered titleholder with respect to real estate, the registration of which was completed under the Defendant’s name, accompanied by the instant second rule (hereinafter “instant second rule”).
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-3, 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. In order for the Defendant to amend the first rule of this case, the gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion shall hold a general or special general meeting and resolve it with the attendance of a majority of all members and with the consent of a majority of the present members.
However, most members of the defendant are not aware of the fact that the first rule of this case was amended and that the second rule of this case was held for the amendment of the first rule of this case. Thus, it is clear that the second rule of this case was not changed through legitimate amendment procedures. Thus, the second rule of this case is null and void.
3. Determination on the legitimacy of the plaintiffs' action
A. The subject of a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the relevant legal doctrine must be against the existence of a specific right or legal relationship. Therefore, it cannot be claimed as a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the validity of a general, abstract statute, or statute itself as a lawsuit for confirmation.
(Supreme Court Decision 93Da61567 Decided December 22, 1995, and Supreme Court Decision 201Da38271 Decided September 8, 201). (B)
Judgment
According to Gap evidence 1-2, the second rule of this case is a content that regulates collective legal relations, such as the defendant's organization and activities, which is a non-corporate body, in other words, a legal norm that has binding force on the defendant's organization and its members.