[2] The case holding that a disposition of expulsion against a member of a natural village is null and void

[3] Whether a general meeting of collective ownership property can claim a distribution of its own shares with a different content from a resolution on distribution method (negative)

[2] The case holding that a disposition of expulsion against a member of a natural village is null and void

[3] The collective ownership property of natural village can be distributed only by a resolution of the village general meeting. Before seeking confirmation of the absence or invalidity of the resolution of distribution, a claim for distribution of one’s own share may not be made with respect to whether the distribution was made or not.

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[3] Supreme Court Decision 94Da31020 delivered on August 22, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 323)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al. (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs an amount of KRW 1,880,00 per annum from July 6, 1995 to June 4, 1997, and an amount of KRW 25 percent per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

4. The costs of the lawsuit are divided into three parts, and the two parts are assessed against the defendant, and the remainder are assessed against the plaintiffs.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of pleadings in the testimony of Gap evidence 1, 3-1, 2-1, 4-2 (the same shall apply to Eul evidence 5-1, 2), Eul evidence 4-5 through 7, 8 (the same shall apply to Eul evidence 5-1, 10 through 13, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3-4, Eul evidence 5-20, Eul evidence 5-33 through 36, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 7-1, Eul evidence 7-2, witness non-party 8, and non-party 6's testimony.

A. The defendant Hasan-ri ○○○○ (hereinafter the defendant Hasan-ri) was composed of 29 members of each head of the household residing in the Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the purpose of which is to promote the mutual cooperation and living convenience of the members of the village, and all the plaintiffs are members of the defendant Hain-ri.

B. On January 1, 191, 191, the defendant village and the non-party 1 (2-gu of the above 2-gu) had a natural village called the 2-gu Masan-gun, Masan-ri, Masan-ri, Masan-ri, 2-gu, Masan-ri, Masan-ri, Masan-ri, 249 square meters at the 2-gu, Masan-ri, Masan-ri, Masan-ri, Masan-ri, 1984, which was composed of the above 2-gu residents, around January 11, 1984, the above 2-gu residents were removed from the Masan-ri, 120,000 won, out of the proceeds from the sale of the above real estate at around April 1, 1994 and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

C. At a special meeting held on August 5, 1994, the defendant Madle distributed the above dividends to the members of the defendant Madle, but at the time of village structure business among the members of the defendant Madle who decided to distribute 100 shares to the residents at the time of village structure business, and 40 shares to the non-residents. On July 5, 1995, according to the above resolution, the defendant Madle decided to distribute 107,160,000 out of the above dividends to the resident 4,70,000 won, and the non-resident distributed 1,880,000 won to the non-resident 27 members of the defendant Madle who are not the plaintiffs, respectively.

D. At the special meeting held on September 16, 1994, the defendant Non-party 2 dismissed the plaintiff 2 who was the chairperson of the defendant Non-party 1 as the chairperson of the non-party 1, and decided to dismiss the non-party 1 as the chairperson of the non-party 1 as of June 29, 1995. The defendant Non-party 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 76, at the time of the inter-party meeting held on June 29, 195, decided to handle the matters to remove the plaintiffs from the defendant Non-party 1 at the special meeting of the village with the consent of all the members present, and on July 1, 1995, the defendant Non-party 2 passed a resolution to remove the plaintiffs from the defendant Non-party 1 as of July 3, 195 (hereinafter referred to as the "resolution of this case"). The plaintiffs notified the plaintiffs of the fact on July 3, 1995.

E. According to the rules and regulations of defendant village, a person who owns a house on the part of the defendant village at the time of the settlement structure project, who is a resident at the time of the settlement structure project, a person who has purchased or newly built a house on the part of the defendant village, a person who has contributed to the contribution under the provisions of defendant village by purchasing or constructing a house on the part of the defendant village. A person who is qualified as a member of the defendant village shall automatically become a member (Article 3) even if he has returned to the residence on the part of the defendant village at the temporary location without selling or selling the house on the part of the defendant village, or a person who has suffered property loss on the part of the defendant village shall be disqualified by a resolution of expulsion by two and three attendance at the meeting and two and three affirmative votes of the number of the members present (Article 5(3)). A general meeting shall be present at the meeting, and a resolution shall be adopted with the consent of the majority of the members present at the meeting and shall not be adopted with the consent of the non-resident at the general meeting of the above 10-party.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. Whether the resolution for expulsion of this case is null and void

(1) The plaintiffs, at the time of the resolution for expulsion of this case, did not notify the plaintiffs of the fact that the meeting was held at the time of the resolution for expulsion of this case, and did not provide an opportunity to defend themselves, we examine the allegation to the effect that the expulsion procedure violates good morals and other social order and thus,

In full view of the statement No. 1 and the witness testimony of the non-party 6 and 8, as seen above, the defendant Non-party 6 and the non-party 8 did not individually notify each of the members of the defendant Non-party 1 of the fact that the defendant Non-party 6 was held at the village general meeting since there was no specific provision on the convocation of the village general meeting or the resolution procedure for expulsion of the members. However, if the defendant Non-party 6 and the non-party 8 held an extraordinary general meeting on July 1, 1995, the defendant Non-party 1 did not notify each of the facts that the non-party 6 and the non-party 6 did not participate in the above general meeting by notifying each of the members of the non-party 6 and the non-party 6 and the non-party 8 of the fact that the resolution of this case was made with the consent of all the members present at the meeting.

Therefore, even if the plaintiffs did not have an opportunity to defend themselves because they did not know the fact of holding the above special meeting as alleged by the plaintiff, there is no provision that they must attend the meeting and provide an opportunity to defend themselves when the members are expelled by the rules of the defendant village, and such circumstance alone does not necessarily mean that the procedure of convening the above special meeting or the resolution of expulsion from office is contrary to the rules of the defendant village, and it cannot be deemed that the resolution of expulsion of this case is null and void as a matter of good customs and other social order. Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

(2) Unlike other members, the plaintiffs presented their opinion that they would not distribute the proceeds from the sale of the real estate of this case and set aside and manage it as a community joint fund. Unlike others, the plaintiffs did not commit any error to be expelled from the defendant village, and the withdrawal from the village by the resolution of expulsion is contrary to the nature of natural village, and therefore, it violates good morals and other social order, and therefore, the resolution of expulsion of this case is null and void.

Generally, the expulsion of a member of a natural village is generally a disposition of expulsion because he/she is deprived of his/her membership against the will of a member who is a local resident, so it shall be recognized only as a final means in extenuating circumstances for the benefit of deprivation, and even if the regulations stipulate the grounds for expulsion, it shall be interpreted strictly from the above point of view.

In full view of the above evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 5-2 and Nos. 13 through 36 of the above evidence Nos. 5 and Nos. 6 of the above evidence Nos. 2 and the witness testimony of Non-party 6, Plaintiff 2 was elected as the chairperson of the non-party 2 around Dec. 1991, and he was released from the office of the chairperson of the non-party 1, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not notified of the change in the name of the deposit account holder of the above statement Nos. 90 and the personal seal impression procedure to the non-party 1, the non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 2's present.

The facts are as above, even if the above plaintiffs suffered some property losses, such as attorney's fees, by failing to perform their duties, such as change of the name of the above deposit contract owner, to the president of the defendant village, even though the above plaintiffs suffered some losses in the defendant village by failing to perform such duties as the above change of the name of the deposit contract owner, the motive of the act was to carry out the opinion that the above dividends should be managed as joint fund in the village, and as of June 23, 1995, all of the above dividends were transferred to the above non-party 1, the act of the plaintiffs cannot be deemed as an act of impairing the honor of the non-party, which is the reason for expulsion stipulated in Article 5 (3) of the Rules of the defendant village, or causing property loss. Even if not viewed as such, it cannot be viewed as an act of causing damage to the non-party 1, and it cannot be viewed as an inevitable measure to immediately remove the above act without considering the nature of natural village as long as it cannot be viewed as an inevitable measure. Thus, the resolution of this case is null and void.

B. Determination on the claim for distribution

Since the plaintiffs decided to distribute the above dividends to the members of the defendant village, they asserted that they have the obligation to pay the above dividends to the plaintiffs as 4,137,931 won (gold 120,000,000/29) in equally divided shares of the members of the defendant village, so there was a resolution by the defendant village to distribute the above dividends. However, among the members of the defendant village village, the ratio of distribution between the residents and non-residents at the time of the village village structure improvement project shall be 100 to 40, and the amount of 4,700,000 won shall be distributed to the residents at the time of the village structure improvement project and 1,880,000 won shall be distributed to the non-residents. In full view of the statements in subparagraph 4-9, 100, and the purport of the argument in the non-party 6 testimony, among the members of the defendant village, the residents of the defendant village at the time of the village structure improvement project shall be 10,000, including the non-party 100.

The plaintiffs asserted that the differential distribution of the dividends to the residents and non-residents at the time of the project for improving the rural community structure as above is null and void in violation of the principle of equal distribution of collective ownership property. However, since the above dividends belong to the collective ownership of the defendant village, only can it be distributed by the resolution of the general meeting of the defendant village, and it is not possible to claim the distribution of their shares in contents different from the resolution of whether to distribute the dividends and the method of distribution before seeking confirmation of the absence or invalidity of such a resolution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da534, Jul. 14, 1992). Thus, it cannot be viewed that collective ownership property should be equally distributed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da534, Jul. 14, 1992). In addition, since there is no evidence to deem that the above

Thus, the defendant village has an obligation to pay to the plaintiffs the amount of KRW 1,880,00 per annum from July 6, 1995, which is the day following the above distribution date to June 4, 1997, which is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation to pay and the amount of 5% per annum from the day following the above distribution date to the day of June 4, 1997, and 25% per annum from the day after the above date to the day of full payment.

3. Ultimately, on July 1, 1995, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the confirmation of nullity of the resolution that made the plaintiffs expulsion at the special village general meeting of the defendant village, which is based on its reasoning. However, the claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges vice-gu (Presiding Judge)