beta
Text
1. The plaintiff A shall be dismissed the lawsuit of the family development association.
2. All claims of plaintiffs B, C, D, and E are dismissed.
3. The costs of the lawsuit;
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim of the Plaintiff Amera Development Cooperatives
A. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff ASAA (hereinafter "the plaintiff union") occupied the 10th of the ASA's 10th floor owned by the plaintiff union without permission. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff union has a duty to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the plaintiff union.
In regard to this, the defendant did not have been lawfully elected as the representative of the plaintiff association. Thus, the plaintiff association's claim filed by G, not a legitimate representative of the plaintiff association, did not meet the requirements for lawsuit as to the standing of the party.
B. We examine the judgment on this safety defense, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the evidence of this case and the overall purport of arguments, i.e., ① the Plaintiff Union does not have a provision on changes in the status of union members, such as the withdrawal of union members, in addition to the provision on the expulsion of union members as a non-corporate body and the provision on the expulsion of union members in its articles of incorporation. Since there has been no legitimate expulsion until now, all 23 union members, who are the first union members, are currently registered (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Na53068, Jun. 27, 2008). ② The Plaintiff Union asserted that G was elected as the head of the union at the general meeting of union members on June 27, 2008, there is no objective evidence to acknowledge it (the issuance of a registration certificate for business operators, etc.). Rather, the Plaintiff Union does not have any objective evidence to support it
4. 18.Woo and the same year.
6. Although 12.12. Members tried to hold an extraordinary general meeting, all of them failed to hold an extraordinary general meeting due to the failure to meet a quorum, and the period is only recognized as a fact that the resolution requirement was not satisfied due to the failure to meet the quorum, which was alleged to have been normally held in the past litigation by the Plaintiff Union.