도시및주거환경정비법위반
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the instant housing redevelopment project is implemented in the fixed shares method, and the instant building design contract does not bear any debt, and thus, the said design contract does not constitute a contract to become a partner, other than the matters stipulated in the budget of the association, and even if it falls under domestic affairs, there was a resolution at the general meeting of the association members on February 17, 201.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendants of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.
2. As to the determination of the lower court, the lower court determined that the pertinent design contract constitutes a contract for which members will bear the burden in addition to the matters stipulated in the association’s budget, and that the pertinent design contract is difficult to be deemed as falling under the matters stipulated in the association’s budget, and that the expenses for the said design contract are included in the business expenses stipulated in Article 11 of the contract for the construction contract (a) entered into with the Plaintiff Company, which is the contractor, and thus, the association shall execute it by borrowing from the contractor or financial institution, and even if it is not so, it shall be adjusted in full, or even if it is not possible, and the association shall pay interest for the expenses already leased to the contractor if it fails to complete the whole schedule within the specified period. In light of the records, the lower court determined that the pertinent design contract constitutes a contract for which members will bear the burden in addition to the matters stipulated in the association’s budget. However, at the ordinary meeting on February 17, 2011, there was no resolution of selecting F as the designer of the company.