beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2021.02.05 2020나2026377

총회결의 무효확인의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the appeal.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal is D’s burden of cost-bearing exceeding KRW 56.9 billion out of the cost of innovation proposal submitted by D at the bidding stage (hereinafter “D innovation”), and the economic benefits of the members under D innovation amounting to KRW 85.4 billion, and unless the Plaintiff’s assertion is asserted, the Defendant should be deemed to have led to confession.

Article 45(1)4 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environment Environments (amended by Act No. 16383, Apr. 23, 2019; hereinafter “former Act”). The Defendant, while holding the instant general meeting, proposed only the instant design design solely without both D Innovation proposals or without notifying all members of the economic interests arising from D Innovation. It violates Article 45(4) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Environments (amended by Act No. 16383, Apr. 23, 2019). The Plaintiff violated Article 45(1)4 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas for the same reason in the first instance trial.

While asserting, the argument was changed in the trial.

The resolution of this case is null and void because there is a serious and obvious defect.

B. Determination 1) Article 45(1)4 of the former Act provides that “a contract that imposes a burden on members, other than the matters stipulated in the budget, shall undergo a resolution by a general meeting.” Article 45(1)13 of the former Act and Article 42(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that “a change in the outline of the design of a building to be constructed” as the design inside the instant design change shall undergo a resolution by the general meeting. Article 45(1)4 of the former Act, as well as Article 45(1)4 of the former Act, Article 45(1)4 of the former Act, the former Act, the Enforcement Decree thereof, and the Defendant’s articles of incorporation, shall also submit a variety of design proposals for “a change in the outline of design” to the general meeting for “a change in the outline of design” or suggest it by comparing the economic burden on members of the association on several designs (the Defendant is not present to the general meeting prior to the instant case).