logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.02.05 2014나17567
총회결의무효확인
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project association established for the purpose of promoting a housing redevelopment improvement project (hereinafter "the redevelopment project of this case") under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter "the Urban Improvement Act") on the land area of 64,453 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Mapo-gu. The plaintiff (the appointed party; hereinafter "the plaintiff") and the appointed party D (the plaintiff and the appointed party D (hereinafter "the plaintiff et al.") are the defendant's members who own real estate within the redevelopment project area of this case.

B. During the process of the disposition of authorization to establish a partnership and the progress of litigation, 1) the Defendant’s overall transfer, filed an application for authorization to establish a partnership with the owner’s written consent to establish a partnership on November 29, 2006, with the head of Mapo-gu considered that the Plaintiff met the requirements for authorization to establish a partnership on October 30, 2009. 2) The Defendant’s partial members filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the above disposition to establish a partnership (Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap46146) on July 22, 2010, but the judgment dismissing the above decision on July 22, 2010, 200, which rejected the application on June 30, 201, 201 that rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for authorization to establish a partnership due to the omission of some of the entries of the owner’s land, etc. at the time of application for authorization to establish a partnership, and thus, rejected the said decision of at least 125% of the Act.

(Supreme Court Decision 201Du19680). 3 Defendant is against the disposition approving the establishment of a partnership.

arrow