Article 86 subparagraph 6 of Article 86 and Article 81 (1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") are limited to the "chairperson or an executive officer of a cooperative" who committed the crime, and it is contrary to the principle of statutoryism to expand this provision to a person who acts for the head of a cooperative appointed by the court.

Nevertheless, by finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “executive officers of an association” under Articles 86 subparag. 6 and 81(1) of the Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and the lower court determined that Article 27 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas provides that “Except as otherwise provided for in this Act, the provisions concerning incorporated associations in the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to a cooperative.” According to Articles 52-2 and 60-2 of the Civil Act, a person in charge of the duties appointed following a provisional disposition can perform an act belonging to the ordinary business affairs of a corporation. The person in charge of the duties of the president of a housing redevelopment project association appointed by a provisional disposition decision may perform the duties of a partnership within the extent that he/she maintains and manages the partnership as he/she is, in its previous affairs, can perform the duties belonging to the ordinary business affairs of the partnership within the extent that he/she maintains and manages the partnership, and in its affairs, he/she is subject to the relevant laws and regulations in handling such affairs, and in addition, Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas provides the partnership’