(영문) 울산지방법원 2020.01.09 2018나25779

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 울산지방법원 2020.01.09 2018나25779

분담금 반환

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the defendant added or added the judgment as set forth in the following Paragraph 2, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. The Defendant asserts that withdrawal shall not be effective in cases where a partner voluntarily causes a lack of the requirements for membership, etc. However, considering the following: (a) there is no provision prohibiting the head of a household from imposing an obligation to continue to maintain his/her status as a householder or from being unable to waive his/her membership; and (b) the fact that a person who loses his/her membership due to the foregoing reason is not disadvantageous to the Defendant because he/she can only refund the remainder of the contributions paid under the provisions of this case excluding the promotion expenses; and (c) it is difficult to deem that a person who loses his/her membership is disadvantageous to the Defendant as he/she is entitled to refund the contributions.

Even if the plaintiff's deprivation of membership cannot be deemed null and void, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserts that the period of repayment and common charges to be deducted by the resolution of the general meeting under the proviso of Article 12(4) of the instant provision may be separately determined. On October 15, 2017, the general meeting amended Article 12(4) of the instant provision to “within 30 days from the date of claim for refund,” and changed the period of repayment from “within 30 days from the date of claim for refund,” and the Defendant’s business was not yet completed. Therefore, the Defendant’s business was not yet completed, and thus, the Defendant’s obligation to return the refund to the Plaintiff did not arrive.

According to the statement of the evidence No. 3, a member of the Association.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-주택법

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2020.01.09 2018나25779

-부산고등법원 2019.06.26 2018나58236

-서울중앙지방법원 2017. 12. 14. 선고 2016가단152804 판결

-울산지방법원 2018.11.29 2018가합23922

-부산지방법원 2020.10.28 2020나56650