1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the judgment of the defendant as to the defendant's argument in the trial of the first instance to the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. Additional determination as to the defendant's assertion

A. Since the Defendant’s assertion that it was the Defendant’s disposal of the claim for rent in the base state, which is collective ownership, without going through the resolution of the general meeting, the instant agreement is null and void.

B. Articles 275 and 276(1) of the Civil Act provide that the management and disposition of collective ownership shall be governed by its articles of incorporation or regulations, if any, and shall be governed by a resolution of the general meeting of employees unless otherwise prescribed by the articles of incorporation or regulations. Thus, the management and disposition of collective ownership without following such procedures shall be null and void. However, the management and disposition of collective ownership under the above Act refers to an act of using or improving the property under collective ownership itself or an act of disposing of legal history.

(1) In cases where a non-corporate body executes a sales contract for collective property, it cannot be deemed that an act of management and disposal of collective property is an act of management and disposal of collective property (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Da60072, 60089, Apr. 19, 2007). Therefore, an act of a non-corporate body entering into a sales contract for collective property constitutes an act of disposal of collective property as an act of disposal of collective property, but it merely indicates that the existence of an obligation under a sales contract is recognized as an act of disposal of collective property, on the ground that an act of management and disposal of collective property does not follow the management and disposal of collective property itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da10790, Apr. 12, 2012).

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Da64383 Decided November 26, 2009). According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the instant case is examined.