The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Even if the specific direct judgment on the matters alleged by the party in the first ground for appeal is not indicated in the reasons for the judgment, it cannot be said that there was no error of omission in the judgment, unless the result of the judgment

(2) The Defendant asserted that Article 6 of the Plaintiff’s Election Management Regulations, a housing redevelopment project cooperative, excessively limits the eligibility of union members to be elected, and that the election management regulations are invalid as it is also null and void as it is in accordance with invalid election management regulations. Since F is not a legitimate representative of the Plaintiff, it is not a legitimate representative of the Plaintiff, the Defendant asserted that the project implementation plan, management and disposal plan, etc. formulated by the Plaintiff was null and void. The lower court did not make an explicit decision on this matter as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

According to the records, the following facts are revealed. A.

Article 6 of the Plaintiff’s Election Management Regulations provides that “A person who has performed the duties of an association at the main association for at least one year as of the closing date of registration of candidate among union members and has resided in the project zone for at least one year as of the date of authorization for establishment of the association and has received recommendation from at least 20 union members.”

B. On June 23, 2011, in the Plaintiff’s election announcement, the number of recommending persons decreased to 10, and on July 25, 2011, at the special general meeting of 111 members, 111 of the 140 members was present and F was elected as the president of the partnership with the consent of 110 of them.

A housing redevelopment project partnership may determine the qualifications of executive officers, such as the head of the partnership, by self-determination, unless it is against statutes.

If the number of union members to be recommended is limited to those who are recommended by more than a certain number of union members and those who are recommended by the union's bylaws, the number of union members to be recommended does not reach the degree that it may infringe upon the rights of a small number of union members in light of the number of all union members.