logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.07.07 2016가합50450
인준취소처분취소청구의소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of premise;

A. Defendant Branch is a non-corporate body, an incorporated association C, comprised of those operating food service establishments in the Gyeongnam-do.

B. On March 30, 1993, the Plaintiff reported general restaurant business in the name of "D" to the head of the Haan-Gun on March 30, 1993, and joined the Defendant Branch as a member on the same day.

C. On March 15, 2013, the Plaintiff was elected as the head of the branch office at the meeting of the Defendant Branch, and the head of the branch office at the Defendant Branch.

On December 30, 2015, Defendant Branch received a civil petition against the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff does not operate its business for a long time, and conducted a special audit on the Plaintiff, and the auditor reported the result of the audit as follows:

① From 2013 to 2015, there was no data for the purchase of value-added tax by the Plaintiff, and the number of months during which no sales have been made exceeds 180 days of business suspension by reaching 19 months.

② As a result of the search of data on purchase and sales of value-added tax and neighboring business establishments and residents, the Plaintiff seems not to have operated D business.

③ The Plaintiff operated D business

Even if D is currently located in G, not F, the Hanam Hanam E (hereinafter referred to as “E”), the location of which is the location of the business report, and constitutes a non-reported business.

④ The Plaintiff did not pay the subscription fee at the time of joining the membership under the above sub-paragraph.

E. On the basis of the aforementioned special audit result on January 8, 2016, the president of the branch office of the Defendant Branch revoked the authorization of the head of the branch office against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant authorization revocation”) based on Articles 8, 9(2), 26, and 30(1) of the Articles of Incorporation, and Articles 4 and 10(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Articles of Incorporation, and notified the Plaintiff thereof.

F. The relevant contents of the Articles of Incorporation and the Enforcement Rules of the Articles of Incorporation of an incorporated association to which the Defendant Branch belongs are as stated in the attached Table-related Articles of Incorporation and the Articles

G. Meanwhile, D is located on the G ground from March 15, 2013, where the Plaintiff was elected as the head of the branch office of the Defendant Branch.

[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute.

arrow