beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against D who is represented by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff’s fixed name is “A”.
B. The Plaintiff’s 41 regular meeting opened on May 28, 2017.
At the day of the above general meeting, the president and the secretary were D and E.
C. On July 14, 2017, the Defendants owned KRW 5,056,950, the principal and interest of the ordinary deposit due to which the Plaintiff subscribed at the Busan Eastdong post office.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading
2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants brought KRW 5,056,950 to the Plaintiff’s fixed deposit without any right at the Busan East Eastdong post office on July 14, 2017. As such, the Defendants are obliged to pay the Plaintiff unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 5,056,950 and delay damages.
3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate
A. On May 28, 2017, the Defendants asserted that D is the Plaintiff’s representative. On July 28, 2017, at the 41st regular meeting of the Plaintiff’s 41st regular meeting, Defendant B took over KRW 5,056,950 of the Plaintiff’s funds on July 14, 2017 after Defendant C was newly appointed as the general director, and D is not the Plaintiff’s representative, and therefore, D is not eligible to bring the instant lawsuit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the nine members of the Plaintiff were present on the day of the above regular meeting, but did not elect the Defendants as the president and the general director, and that five members including the Defendants were not elected as the Defendants, and the general meeting was terminated by five members of the above regular meeting. (2) The Plaintiff asserts that D is a legitimate representative of the Plaintiff.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da39301, Jul. 25, 1997). 3, it is insufficient to recognize that D is a representative of the Plaintiff based on the health unit and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in accordance with the above legal principle. There is no other evidence to acknowledge this.
Rather, the 41st regular meeting of the Plaintiff is held on May 28, 2017.