The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, since misunderstanding F was transferred shares from J, his spouse, after the establishment of a partnership, it does not correspond to the owner or partner of the land, etc. as stipulated in Article 81(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (hereinafter “Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions Act”), and it is sufficient to comply with the request for reproduction by union members after the establishment of the partnership. Thus, the owner of the shares in common was not entitled to request the disclosure of the data, and the Defendant is not obligated to comply with

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine

We rejected the Defendant’s assertion.

A) The Act does not provide for restrictions that only members may exercise rights related to the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas after the establishment of the association.

B) Article 81 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas does not distinguish the subject of duty from the time of the establishment of an association, and accordingly does not distinguish the application by the association members and the owners of the land.

C) Only one of the co-owners of land, etc. can become a partner.

Even if the other co-owners need to peruse and copy the documents related to the union for the protection of their rights, such as the change of union members.

(d) The extent of cash clearing is required for owners, such as land that did not consent to the establishment of the partnership even if the partnership was established, or for those who acquired the buildings or land of the rearrangement project that could not acquire the membership of the partnership.