[임시주민총회무효확인][공2010하,2151]
In a case where the residents' general meeting of the promotion committee for the establishment of the housing redevelopment and improvement project gives approval to the above previous resolution or makes a re-determination of dismissal after the resolution of dismissal of the promotion committee chairperson and the promotion committee members, whether there is a benefit to seek confirmation of invalidity of the previous resolution of dismissal (negative); and in this case, whether there is a benefit to seek confirmation of invalidity of the previous resolution of dismissal (negative)
In a case where the general meeting of residents of the promotion committee for the establishment of a housing redevelopment and improvement project, after the resolution of dismissal of the promotion committee chairperson and the promotion committee members, approved the above previous resolution as it is or re-adopted at the general meeting of residents again held after the resolution of dismissal of the promotion committee, barring special circumstances, such as where the resolution of the general meeting of residents again held is invalid due to the defect in the previous resolution, it does not meet the requirements for protection of rights as it is merely seeking confirmation of the previous legal relationship or legal relationship. In this case, the reason that the new general meeting of residents was convened by the promotion committee chairperson or the acting director who was newly authorized to convene a new resolution of dismissal after the dismissal of the original invalid, and thus, the reason that the general meeting convened by an unentitled person cannot be deemed as an independent reason for invalidation in principle. If this is considered as a reason for invalidation, it would result in a chain of legal relations and significantly undermine the legal stability.
Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 98Da35754 delivered on December 22, 1998 (Gong1999Sang, 193) Supreme Court Decision 2001Da64479 Delivered on September 26, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 2056)
Plaintiff
Seongbuk-do Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association Establishment Promotion Committee (Law Firm Rate, Attorney Lee Han-han, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na105739 decided July 9, 2009
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In a case where the resident general meeting of the committee for the promotion of the establishment of the housing redevelopment and improvement project, after the resolution of dismissal of the chairperson and the promoters of the committee for the promotion of the new committee for the resolution of dismissal of the committee for the promotion of the new committee for the resolution of the former committee for the resolution of dismissal, barring special circumstances such as where the resolution of the existing committee for the former resolution of dismissal is invalid due to the defect of the existing committee for the resolution of the former committee for the resolution of dismissal, it does not meet the requirements for the protection of rights. In this case, the new committee for the residents was convened by the chairman or the acting director of the committee for the promotion or the acting director of the newly authorized committee after the dismissal of the new committee for the promotion of the committee for the promotion of the housing redevelopment and improvement project cannot be deemed as an independent reason for invalidation in principle. If this is considered as a reason for invalidation, it would result in confusion in legal relations and significantly undermine legal stability (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Da375404, Dec. 22, 1998; 200.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff's new promotion committee chairperson was appointed as non-party 2, non-party 3, non-party 4, and non-party 5 who was the promotion committee chairperson at the time of the defendant's extraordinary general meeting on July 20, 207 (hereinafter "the first dismissal resolution of this case"), and that the non-party 2, non-party 3, non-party 4, and the promotion committee chairperson were appointed as non-party 5, etc. as non-party 2, non-party 2, non-party 4, and the promotion committee chairperson at the new promotion committee chairperson at the meeting of the promotion committee on February 22, 2008 and tried to appoint the promotion committee chairperson in order of the senior chairperson and the promotion committee chairperson under Article 17 of the Operating Rules, but the non-party 5, who was the promotion committee chairperson at the time of this case's refusal to accept the above report, and that the plaintiff's dismissal of non-party 1, non-party 2, the removal of this case's 98.
In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law such as omission of judgment, violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, and incomplete hearing as otherwise alleged in the ground of
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)