logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.12.08 2016나2021498
총회결의무효확인소송
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the claim for confirmation of invalidation against a resolution that appointed D as a custodian shall be revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a managing body duly established pursuant to the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings with all sectional owners as its members for the purpose of implementing the management project of Ansan-si Office Office.

B. The Plaintiff, a sectional owner of Ctel 305, was appointed as the Defendant’s manager at the temporary management body meeting held on May 18, 2007, and issued a resignation notice to D on January 21, 2014.

C. At the temporary meeting of the management body held on November 10, 2014 at the request of 123 of the sectional owners of Ctel 363 persons, D was delegated voting rights respectively from 180 sectional owners, and from 32 sectional owners (13 of them were overlappingly delegated to D) from 32 of the sectional owners. D, as the chairperson of the sectional ownership, made an original report that 198 of the 363 sectional owners (18 of the 363 sectional owners were present, 18 of the 193 sectional owners, 5 of the direct participants and 198 of the written delegation (180 of the written delegation to D) of D, among 32 persons delegated to D and directly attending D, were elected as executive officers of D management body with the approval of the total number of 203 persons, including 19 of the 32 persons delegated to D and delegated to D, and D was elected as executive officers of D management body.

(hereinafter referred to as the "resolution of this case") No dispute over the resolution to appoint D as custodian / [based on recognition], Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6, Eul evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Defenses before the merits;

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the prior decision of the instant case is invalid due to procedural and substantive defects, the Defendant asserts that there is no benefit to seek confirmation of invalidation of the instant decision as the instant lawsuit, since D did not perform its duties as a custodian.

B. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation or confirmation of the absence or invalidation of a resolution of the appointment of one executive officer, the resolution of the extraordinary general meeting shall be adopted.

arrow