Nevertheless, around July 22, 2017, the Defendant entered into a general meeting service agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the effect that: (a) the Defendant shall pay KRW 55,420,000 to the D Housing Redevelopment Development Project Association (hereinafter “D Housing Redevelopment Project Association”)’s offices of the D Housing Redevelopment Project Association (hereinafter “instant association”) other than the matters set out in the budget, without going through a resolution of the general meeting comprised of its members; and (b) the payment of KRW 55,420,00 for vicarious services of the 2017 general meeting.

2. Article 24(3) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas”) does not stipulate at the time of a general meeting’s resolution. However, the aforementioned provision is intended to provide procedural guarantees for members to reflect their opinions, as it directly affects their rights and obligations, and for this purpose, it is interpreted as having a penal provision under Article 85 subparag. 5 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions. In light of the fact that it is difficult to reinstate if a contract was concluded and implemented without a prior resolution of a general meeting, it may cause confusion in legal relations, and this situation may interfere with the free decision-making of the members, “resolution by a general meeting” under Article 85 subparag. 5 of the Act refers to a prior resolution in principle (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14296, Jun. 24, 2010).

(1) [A prior resolution is difficult.]