Construction Co., Ltd.

Ronam District Land Readjustment Project Association (Law Firm Dongdong, Attorneys Ahn Chang-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

may 2, 2006

Incheon District Court Decision 2004Gahap14327 Delivered on October 26, 2005

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant held that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 9,221,71,000 won with 5% interest per annum from October 28, 2004 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the defendant ordering payment of 4,610,850,000 won and its corresponding amount in excess of 5% per annum from October 28, 2004 to the date of full payment, shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: 3. A. (2) (d) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Paragraph 2; 3.c. of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Paragraph 3; 4. of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Section 420 of the Civil Procedure Act; and 4. of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Paragraph 3. of the following.

2. (D) Next, 2 of the 36 representatives who participated in the above resolution, including Nonparty 1, etc., lost their status as a partner because they sold their own land in the business district and lost their status as a representative. Nonparty 2, etc., appointed by the second council of representatives, including Nonparty 2, etc., who was appointed by the second council of delegates, cannot be recognized as a representative in an invalid relationship because the resolution of appointment of the second council of delegates did not constitute a quorum for intention, and therefore, it cannot be acknowledged as a representative in an invalid relationship. Accordingly, this part of the assertion that the resolution of this case in which they participated is invalid

① Article 27(4) of the Land Readjustment Projects Act and Article 16 of the articles of association of the defendant association provide that representatives shall be elected from among the members of the association. According to the purport of the evidence No. 24-1 through No. 25-5 of the evidence No. 24-1 and the whole pleadings, the above non-party No. 1 loses his status as a member of the association by granting the registration of ownership transfer to the non-party No. 6 on May 9, 2003, although the above non-party No. 1 lost his status as a member of the association on the land owned by the non-party No. 382-1 and No. 382-3 of the Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Jung-dong, Jung-dong, Incheon, and the non-party No. 7, who was appointed at the inaugural general meeting on July 25, 2002, the above non-party No. 474-2, who lost his status as a member of the association on each of the above land from the date of Apr. 23, 20003.

② According to the above evidence No. 1 and No. 10-4 and No. 15-1 to No. 3 of the above evidence No. 2 (the above evidence No. 2) of the defendant association's articles of association provide that the non-party 2 may appoint new officers or representatives due to the resignation or dismissal of officers, etc. of the representatives by the resolution of the board of representatives. Article 24 (2) and (5) provides that the majority of the incumbent members of the board of representatives shall be the majority of the number of incumbent members, and that the other representatives shall be entitled to legally delegate their voting rights; the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 shall be appointed by the non-party 4 (the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 shall be the non-party 4 and the non-party 2 shall be the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 shall be the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 shall be the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 shall be appointed by the non-party 1 and the non-party 39 (the non-party 1).

3. As to the allegation that the second council resolution on the removal of representatives is not legitimate

(1) The argument

Finally, in order to prevent the removal of representatives by arbitrary or large number of crossings, the Defendants are required to provide the existence of definite grounds for dismissal and the opportunity to explain to the representatives subject to dismissal in order to be observed in the dismissal procedure, but the removal of representatives is valid. However, while the second representatives' meeting passed a resolution to dismiss seven representatives, including Nonparty 43, the Defendants did not attend the meeting but did not give notice of the convocation of the board of representatives to the representatives subject to dismissal, and the opportunity to explain was not granted, so the resolution to dismiss the seven representatives, such as Nonparty 43, etc., is invalid, and therefore, the instant resolution that the representatives did not attend the meeting is also invalidated.

(2) Determination

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Eul evidence 12-1 through 4, the defendant issued a notice of convening a board of representatives as of July 24, 2003 as of August 24, 2003, on which the office of the union is removed or replaced by a vacancy, etc., and the representative attending the above meeting is included in the non-party 44 and the non-party 45 representing the board of representatives on which the board of representatives was removed on the day, among the representatives who attended the above meeting, the board of representatives was dismissed on the day. In addition, even if the non-party 46 was represented by the board of representatives dismissed by the above board of representatives on the other agenda, it was difficult to accept the notice of convening a board of representatives as of July 24, 2003 by presenting their opinions before the above dismissal agenda was presented, and immediately after the above agenda was dealt with, it is difficult to accept the defendant's assertion that the above notice of convening a board of representatives was not presented.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge) Lee (Presiding Judge)