[1] The legal nature of the housing association under the Housing Construction Promotion Act (non-corporate company)

[2] The validity of the regulations stipulated in the housing association which is not a non-corporate association, which shall belong to the partnership head of the right to appoint officers and the delegation of authority to the board of directors (effective)

[1] Although a housing association established under the Housing Construction Promotion Act establishes regulations which have the nature of an association with its own own purpose only by using the name of the association, it shall have an organization such as a general meeting as a decision-making institution, an operating committee, and an executive organ, etc. based on which the general meeting as a decision-making institution, an operating committee, and an executive organ are appointed, and a decision or business execution method is carried out in accordance with the principle of majority majority, and the important matters of the association itself as a non-corporate association

[2] Article 40, Article 58, and Article 68 of the Civil Code shall apply mutatis mutandis to non-corporate associations except where the corporate body is based on the premise of corporate personality. Accordingly, in the case of a corporation, the appointment and dismissal of directors or the performance of the affairs of several directors, and the authority of the general meeting may be delegated to the directors or other officers by the articles of incorporation. Therefore, in the housing association which is not a corporate body, the first officer shall be elected at the general meeting, but a vacant officer shall be appointed by the head of the association upon the recommendation of the board of directors, and in the case where the operating committee which consists of the officers provides for the rules that the resolution of the general meeting shall have the same effect as the resolution of the general meeting, the appointment of vacant officers by the head of the association and the delegation of authority to the operating committee of the

[1] Article 31 of the Civil Act, Article 3 subparagraph 9 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act / [2] Articles 31, 40, 58, and 68 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da2431 delivered on July 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 2360), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu8163 delivered on April 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1605), Supreme Court Decision 93Da51591 delivered on April 26, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 14666), Supreme Court Decision 93Da23862 delivered on February 3, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1141) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da23087 delivered on October 9, 192 (Gong192, 3113), Supreme Court Decision 92Da29825 delivered on September 26, 1995 (Gong1992, 192, 195Ha295Ha2595 delivered on September 25, 1996)

Saml Housing Association (Attorney Lee Jae-in, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Kim Young-ho et al. and 38 others (Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

(1) A person who is a party to a lawsuit for the replacement of the

Daejeon High Court Decision 95Na663, 94Na1409 delivered on July 18, 1996

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants (including the appointed parties).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff association is a housing association established with the approval of establishment on November 19, 1983 for the establishment of national housing by 96 persons without a house. The purpose of the plaintiff association's regulations is to smoothly operate and manage all business in the process of housing construction (Article 1), 2 3 11, 6, 6, 6, 6, 2, 3, 3, 4, 6, 2, 3, 4, 4, 6, 6, 4, 6, 6, 4, 5, 6, 5, 5, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 5, 6, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 2, 2 or 6, and 6, and 6, 6, 7.

In light of the records, the above recognition judgment of the court below is just and acceptable (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da2431 delivered on July 10, 1992, Supreme Court Decision 93Da51591 delivered on April 26, 1994, Supreme Court Decision 93Da23862 delivered on February 3, 1995, etc.), and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles of non-corporate association, such as the theory of lawsuit.

In conclusion, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below merely because it criticizes the selection of evidence and the recognition of facts, which are the exclusive authority of the court below, or it is merely an attack on the premise of the judgment of the court below.

Concerning points 2 and 4

(1) The court below held that the rules of the Plaintiff Union include ① the head of the association and the executive members of the association shall be elected from among its members with the consent of at least 2/3 of its members present at the general meeting and with the consent of at least two-thirds of its members present at the general meeting, but the head of the association shall be appointed at the general meeting once a year upon the recommendation of the executive members present at the general meeting, and the head of the association shall convene the general meeting if deemed necessary for the operation of the association, and the matters resolved by the operating committee shall be substituted by the general meeting (Article 5).

In light of the records, the above recognition judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it shall be applied mutatis mutandis to the non-corporate body except where it is premised on legal personality among the provisions of the Civil Act concerning incorporated associations (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da23087 delivered on October 9, 1992). In the case of a corporation, the appointment and dismissal of directors or the performance of duties of several directors are performed in accordance with the provisions of the articles of incorporation, and the authority of the general meeting can be delegated to the directors or other officers (see Articles 40, 58, and 68 of the Civil Act). Thus, the method of appointing the officers of the Plaintiff association and the delegation of authority to the management committee cannot be deemed to violate the essence of the association.

In addition, if the facts are identical to the above, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff union will be dissolved only after the procedure for the settlement of accounts as above. Thus, the theory that the liquidator must represent the plaintiff union or make a claim based on the result of the liquidation of the liquidation committee cannot be accepted. In addition, even if the plaintiff union is dissolved, the court below did not determine the dissolution of the plaintiff union when it judged that the plaintiff union still has the ability to be a party within the scope of the purpose for the settlement of accounts so long as the positive property remains remaining. However, since the judgment of the court below is only limited to that of the plaintiff union's dissolution as a non-corporate body in making a decision on the main defense of safety, it cannot be viewed that the above determination of the court below is based on the premise that the plaintiff union was dissolved.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment of the court below contains any error of law such as incomplete deliberation, misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of legal principles as to the dissolution of an association, and interpretation of the rules concerning the resolution and validity of the general

We cannot accept all the arguments because they merely criticize or criticize the selection of evidence and the recognition of facts, which are the exclusive authority of the court below, or attack the judgment of the court below on the premise of the judgment of the court below.

With respect to the third, fifth, and sixth points

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we agree with all of the judgment below as to the point that the theory of lawsuit points out (the change in the name of a member in an administrative authority is made by the law and thus cannot be viewed as a member of the defendant, etc., and the obligation of the plaintiff union, which is the contribution of this case, cannot be deemed as appropriate, and the head of the plaintiff union bears only the interest on the repayment of loans and the loan to the union members, and there is no additional burden. There is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the omission of judgment like the theory of lawsuit, misunderstanding of facts due to the omission of judgment, incomplete deliberation, or violation of the rules of evidence, the probative value

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)