총회결의무효확인
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.
1. The lower court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant resolution, following fact-finding and legal determination as follows. A.
In a special meeting held on March 15, 2017, the Defendant resolved to select the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “participating”) as a joint project executor of the instant project at the general meeting.
B. 1) The intervenor presented innovation proposals based on alternative design along with the original copy of the project in this case at the time of the participation of the intervenor in the tender in this case. However, insofar as the tender price for the original design presented by the intervenor is within the predetermined scope of the project cost, since the tender price for the innovation proposal that is difficult to be considered as a specialized or alternative exceeds the project cost’s project cost, it cannot be deemed that the intervenor violated Article 5 subparag. 2 of the Provisions on Participation in the Tender in this case. 2) The participant cannot be deemed to have committed a violation of Article 5 subparag. 2 of the Notice on the Tender in this case by promoting that some of the tender proposal is different from the contents of the tender proposal or it is likely that the
IV. Article VI: A. of the Guidelines for Preparation of Tender Proposal
There is room to view that part of Article 5(12) of the Notice of Participation in Tender is violated.
However, it is difficult to view the instant resolution as null and void since the Intervenor’s act seriously infringed the Defendant’s right to choose a free joint project executor, thereby making the instant bid difficult to be deemed a competitive bidding.
C. As alleged in the Plaintiffs, the Defendant’s enforcement decision on the allegation that the Defendant’s decision on the invalidation of the resolution related to the Defendant intentionally rejected the Defendant’s violation of construction cost for innovative bills or the Intervenor
or the participants do not remove false information distributed by them, but cause confusion to its members.