logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2020.01.10 2017가합102573
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant EO, EP, EP, Q, and ER jointly do so to the rest of the Plaintiffs except the Plaintiff’s Regional Housing Association.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 19, 2016, the Plaintiff Union’s project to build apartment units (hereinafter “instant project”) at the ET Daily in the Asia-si ETS (hereinafter “instant project”).

(i) is a regional housing association established under the Housing Act (hereinafter referred to as a “Plaintiff association”) to promote the project.

(2) Defendant EO was the president of the Plaintiff Union from November 2014 to May 27, 2017.

Defendant EP Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EP”) is an agent who entered into a service contract with the Plaintiff union, and Defendant EP is an inside director and actual operator of Defendant EP, and Defendant EP is a representative director of Defendant EP.

Defendant ES Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ES”) is a trust company that entered into a contract on December 26, 2014 with the Plaintiff’s association for the management of funds for the instant business.

B. Defendant EO, EO, Q, and ER obtained land contributions by Defendant EO, EQ, and ER, even though the Plaintiff’s association failed to recruit more than 50% of the total expected number of members, the Plaintiff’s association pretended that the Plaintiff union recruited at least 50% of its members by recruiting false members and submitting a letter of waiver to the effect that Defendant EP would substitute a part of the down payment and then renounce its rights as a union member at the same time as the membership subscription agreement, and then, it was urged that the Plaintiff union recruited at least 50% of its members, and it received land contributions from the rest of the Plaintiffs, other than the Plaintiff association, from October 6, 2015 to January 24, 2017.

The Supreme Court Decision 2018 Gohap31 Decided August 22, 2018 (Appeal and dismissal of appeal) against Defendant EO and ER, and the Supreme Court Decision 2018 Gohap139 Decided April 17, 2019 (Appeal and dismissal of appeal) against Defendant Q.

arrow