[1] The case holding that there is a benefit in filing a lawsuit for confirmation in holding the status of the head of the Do branch or the head of the Si/Gun/Gu branch under the Korea Lodging Business Federation

[2] Whether there is a legal interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the revocation resolution, which is the head of the Do branch, in addition to the claim for confirmation of holding the status of the head of the Do branch under the Korea Lodging Business Association (negative)

[3] The case holding that the election of representatives of City branches under the Korea Lodging Business Federation is invalid as it goes against the basic principles of organization's constituent interests

[1] The case holding that it is deemed appropriate to seek confirmation of holding the status of the head of the Do branch or the head of the Si/Gun/Gu branch under the Korea Lodging Business Association of an incorporated association and there is a legal interest immediately in the dispute resolution

[2] The invalidity of the resolution of revocation of the authorization to be granted to the head of the Do branch under the Korea Lodging Business Association constitutes the premise of the claim for confirmation of the status of the head of the Do branch. Therefore, seeking confirmation of the invalidity of the authorization to be granted to the head of the Do branch, separate from the claim for confirmation of the status of the head of the Do branch, is merely a medium and repetitive means and there is no interest

[3] The case holding that the election of representatives of City branches under the Korea Lodging Business Federation is invalid because it goes against the basic principles of the organization's constituent members, and is in violation of good customs and other social order

Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 103 of the Civil Act

J. D. (Attorney Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Korea Lodging Service Federation (Attorney Seo-tae, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

1. Of the instant lawsuits, the Defendant’s provisional society dated December 8, 1993, the revocation of the approval of the president of the Chungcheongbuk Branch against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of invalidity of the Plaintiff’s deprivation of position of director of the board of directors shall be dismissed.

2. On April 30, 1993, the Cheongju-si Branch under the defendant confirms that the resolution in which the Cheongju-si Branch was elected as the chief of the Cheongju-si Branch is null and void.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. Two-minutes of litigation costs are assessed against the defendant, and the remainder is assessed against the plaintiff.

It is confirmed that the Plaintiff has the status of the president of the Chungcheongbuk-do branch and the head of the Cheongju-si branch under the Defendant’s jurisdiction. A resolution adopted at the General Assembly of Cheongju-si branch on April 30, 1993 by the Defendant’s Cheongju-si branch to elect the Nonparty on the head of the Cheongju-si branch, and the Defendant’s provisional society on December 8, 1993, to cancel the appointment of the president of the Cheongju-si branch against the Plaintiff and to deprive the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff’s position of directors at the

1. Basic facts

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or there is no evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 3, 1 through 4, 5, 6, 1 through 3, 7, 8, 9-1, 2, 10 through 25, 30, 32-1 through 3, 33, 34, 1, 35-1, 2, 36, 31, 1, 2, 3-1 through 5, 4, 5, 7, 8-1, 2, 9-1, 3-2, 1-1, 2-1, 3-2, 1-2, 3-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 3-2, 1-2, 3-1, 2-1, 2-1, 3-2, 1-2, 3-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-1, 3-2, 3-1, 2-1, 1-2, 2-

A. The defendant's organization

(1) The defendant is a non-profit incorporated association under the Civil Act established with the permission of the Minister of Health and Welfare on April 1966 with the aim of promoting friendships and rights and interests among the national accommodation businessmen and cooperatings with the improvement of public health and the administrative operation of the administrative authorities concerned. The defendant, as its affiliated organization, has its branch offices in each Gu, Metropolitan City, and Do, and its affiliated organization, and its branch offices in each Si, Gun, and Do. The central association has jurisdiction over Seoul, its branch offices, and its local administrative agencies concerned.

(2) The proviso of Article 5(3) of the Defendant’s articles of association provides that the branch office in the seat of the branch office shall, in principle, be directly under the jurisdiction of the branch office in the meeting of the central association, and that the central association may separately determine it in the meeting when special circumstances exist. During that period, by April 193, the head of the Chungcheongbuk-do branch office under the Defendant’s affiliated organization (hereinafter referred to as the “Cheongbuk-do branch office”) elected the chief of the Chungcheongbuk-do branch office and its officers, but the head of the Cheongju-si branch under the Chungcheongbuk-do branch (hereinafter referred to as the “Cheongju-si branch”) did not separately elect the officers of the branch office in the Cheongju-si branch and its officers, without holding the general meeting of representatives and general meeting of members for the election of the head of the above branch office and its officers. In fact, the person elected as the chief of the Chungcheongbuk-si branch office and its officers while holding the position of the chief of the Cheongju-si branch office and its officers and performing their duties, such as Nonparty 1, 3.

(b) Circumstances and results of the Assembly of Representatives of Cheongju-si Branch on April 30, 1993;

(1) On April 6, 1993, the non-party Shin-si, a member of the Cheongju-si Branch, submitted to the defendant a letter of recommendation that "at this time, the Cheongju-si Branch has held the Cheongju-si Branch's general meeting without holding the representative general meeting and the general meeting of members, which is unfair, so that the Cheongju-si Branch's general meeting may be held." As such, the defendant can hold the representative meeting of the Cheongju-si Branch's general meeting on April 9 of the same year because the above non-party, who actually performs the duties of the Cheongju-si Branch's general meeting of members, can hold the representative meeting of the Cheongju-si Branch's general meeting of members." By April 30 of the same year, the defendant presented a guideline to the Cheongju-si Branch's general meeting of members."

(2) Accordingly, on April 16 of the same year, the Cheongju-si branch convened an executive meeting of the Cheongju-si branch, and the above Nonparty, the head of the Cheongju-si branch, appointed the above Cheongju-si branch as a director with the delegation of the directors, and the general meeting for selecting the head of the new branch was to be held on April 30 of the same year, but the president of the Cheongju-si branch was delegated with the method of appointing representatives from the directors. The Cheongju-si branch convened on April 19 of the same year was appointed as the 27 representatives designated by the chairman of the Cheongju-si branch, among the members of the Cheongju-si branch, appointed 27 representatives from among the Cheongju-si branch as the officers of the Cheongju-si branch. Since that year, 11 representatives who were actually performing the executive duties of the Cheongju-si branch and were elected as the 38 representatives.

(3) The plaintiff and the above non-party registered as the candidate for the head of the above branch office, and the general meeting of the Cheongju-si branch held on April 30 of the same year was elected by the above non-party as the head of a new branch office after obtaining 26 marks out of 36 marks of total voting number. In addition, the decision was made to delegate the authority to appoint 7 representatives of the Cheongju-si branch office recommended by the Cheongju-si branch office to the above non-party.

(c) Circumstances and results of the General Meeting of Representatives of the Chungcheongbuk-do Association on May 26, 1993;

(1) However, on May 12, 1993, the defendant issued a written public notice for partial correction of guidelines to the effect that "the head of the Cheongju-si branch in the official document dated April 9, 1993, which held that the head of the Cheongju-si branch in the official document dated April 9, 1993 may concurrently serve as the head of the Cheongju-si branch, shall be in principle under the jurisdiction of the branch office in question, and thus the head of Cheongju-si branch may concurrently serve as the head of the Cheongju-si branch."

(2) On the other hand, on May 26, 1993, the Chungcheongnamdo Branch held a representative regular meeting to elect Do branches. On this spot, seven representatives from the Cheongju District Branch recommended by the above non-party were present and exercised voting rights. As a result of the first voting, the Plaintiff and the above non-party registered as the candidate for Do branches with the same 17 votes received the same 17 votes, and the Plaintiff was elected as the new Do branches Chairperson after obtaining 19 votes out of the total voting number 34 votes.

(d) Disputes between the president of Chungcheongbuk-do and the chief of Cheongju-si branch;

(1) As above, the Plaintiff elected as the president of the Chungcheongbuk-do branch was seeking to take over the affairs of the Do branch from the above Nonparty, who was the head of the Do branch office and the above Nonparty, who was the head of the Do branch office, but the above Nonparty was duly elected as the head of the Cheongju-si branch office. The above office, office, office, equipment, etc. were first owned by the Do branch office, and the above office, office, office, etc. were left the above office after being received only the signboards and books of the Do branch office and refused to take over.

(2) Accordingly, on June 2 of the same year, the Chungcheongnam-do Branch held the first board of directors to elect the head of Cheong-si Branch as above is null and void as it goes against the proviso of Article 5(3) of the Articles of Incorporation and the custom for that period. As such, the above non-party shall hand over the above office and the house, and the defendant who caused such dispute by sending official notices on April 9, 1993, must settle it smoothly, and if the defendant is unable to resolve it, a resolution was passed to dissolve the Chungcheongbuk-do Branch and seek all legal measures against the defendant and the above non-party, and reported this to the defendant on June 4 of the same year.

(3) On June 7 of the same year, the Plaintiff demanded the above Nonparty to hand over the above office, house, fixtures, etc., according to the resolution of the board of directors of the Chungcheongbuk-do Association. Accordingly, on June 9 of the same year, the Plaintiff received only the deposit and documents from the above Nonparty, and did not take over the remainder of the office, etc.

(4) On June 14, 1993, the Plaintiff reported that the transfer system was delayed as above to the Defendant, and filed a complaint against the said Nonparty under suspicion of interference with business on June 15 of the same year. On July 8 of the same year, the Plaintiff filed with the Cheongju District Court an application for provisional disposition against the said Nonparty by suspending the said Nonparty’s performance of duties as the head of the Cheongju Branch Office of the Cheongju District Court.

(5) On August 21, 21 of the same year, the above non-party, who is the head of the Cheongju-si branch, submitted a letter of withdrawal from the Cheongju-si branch to the plaintiff, who is the head of the Cheongju-si branch, on the ground that the Cheongju-si branch does not file a complaint and lawsuit as above and deliver the official documents directed from the defendant to the Cheongju-si branch. Meanwhile, on September 27 of the same year, the defendant ordered the head of the Cheongju-si branch to leave the Cheongju-si branch and operate the defendant in his position. On the other hand, the defendant ordered the head of the Cheongju-si branch to receive instructions from the Cheongju-si branch, not the Cheongju-si branch, if he could not resolve the dispute between the Cheongju-si branch and the Cheongju-si branch by October 11 of the same year.

(6) Since December 1, 1993, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Cheongju District Court against the Cheongju District Court on April 30, 1993 on which the resolution of the Cheongju District Court General Meeting of Representatives of April 30, 1993 seeks confirmation of nullity.

E. Circumstances and results of the resolution by the board of directors of December 8, 1993 by the defendant

(1) On November 27, 1993, the Defendant notified the directors and auditors belonging to the Defendant of the fact that the Defendant would hold the Defendant temporary directors’ meeting on the agenda of the business regulations, the deliberation and resolution of the business regulations, the aid fund for the needy, and other discussions on December 8, 1993.

(2) However, prior to that time, the defendant tried to resolve the above dispute between the Chungcheongbuk-do Branch and the Cheongju-si Branch at its affiliated organization management committee, but as the dispute continued, the parties to the dispute and the plaintiff and the non-party who were the parties to the dispute were also notified of the holding of the provisional board of directors as above.

(3) Therefore, in the Defendant Provisional Society held on December 8 of the same year, the following matters were deliberated and resolved on the draft of the above business regulations, and deliberated on the agenda concerning the collection of funds to help the payment of funds to help the payment of funds, and the Plaintiff and the above Nonparty were present at the meeting of the board of directors to clarify the circumstances surrounding the dispute during that period, and asked them whether they agree to the dispute mediation proposal presented by the board of directors, and then, they were given a reply to their consent, and they were withdrawn from the meeting, and the Plaintiff was notified the Plaintiff on December 10 of the same year with the consent of 37 members of the board of directors.

(4) On December 21 of the same year, the Chungcheong Branch held ad hoc director meeting on which the defendant violated the articles of incorporation, so the defendant would no longer be able to participate in the duties of the president of the Chungcheong Branch and, if this is not resolved, decided to withdraw from the defendant, and notified the defendant thereof.

F. Circumstances and results of the expulsion of the Plaintiff on December 21, 1993 at the Cheongju-si Branch

(1) On December 10, 1993, the Cheongju-si Branch held a board of directors and proposed to refer the Plaintiff, a member of the Cheongju-si Branch, to the Disciplinary Committee on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not recognize the Cheongju-si Branch as the president of the Cheongju-si Branch, and filed criminal complaints and civil litigation and did not pay membership fees. On December 31, 1993, the Cheongju-si Branch notified the Plaintiff of the attendance.

(2) On December 21 of the same year, the temporary board of directors of the Cheongju-si branch held on December 21 of the same year attended the meeting of 11 members, including the above Nonparty and directors, who are the head of the Si branch, and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff with the consent of all participants, on the ground that the above act of the Plaintiff constitutes Article 9(1) through (3) of the Defendant’s Articles of

G. The subsequent situation

(1) In accordance with the above resolution of December 8, 1993, the defendant appointed the non-party as an acting representative for the president of the Chungcheongbuk Branch and notified it to the Chungcheongbuk Branch. Accordingly, the plaintiff still made the plaintiff to be the president of the Chungcheongbuk Branch and made the plaintiff perform the duties of the president of the branch. On October 4, 1994, the above non-party filed a criminal complaint on suspicion that the plaintiff's collection of the membership fee interfered with the business by collecting the membership fee even if the plaintiff is no longer the president of the branch, but this was not suspected.

(2) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn the above lawsuit filed with the Cheongju District Court and filed the instant lawsuit with the instant court.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Whether there is a benefit in confirming the instant lawsuit

(1) The defendant asserts to the purport that since the status of the head of the Do branch or the head of the Si/Gun/Gu branch under the defendant's jurisdiction has no special legal meaning, the lawsuit of this case where the plaintiff seeks confirmation of past facts, and that the defendant's board of directors and the head of the Cheongju-si branch seek confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the general meeting of the representatives of the Cheongju-si branch, it is nothing more than seeking confirmation of past facts, and that the plaintiff's legal relationship is infringed or the plaintiff's legal unstable status is not placed in a legal unstable situation.

(2) Therefore, the dispute over the above legal relations between the plaintiff's 196 and the defendant's 19. The 3rd anniversary of its establishment and the 9th anniversary of its establishment and the 9th anniversary of its establishment. The 19.3rd anniversary of its establishment and the 3rd anniversary of its establishment and the 19. The 9th anniversary of its establishment and the 3rd anniversary of its establishment and the 9th anniversary of its establishment and the 19th anniversary of its establishment. The 9th anniversary of its establishment and the 9th anniversary of its establishment and the 19th anniversary of its establishment and the 19th anniversary of its establishment. The 3rd anniversary of its establishment and the 19th anniversary of its establishment and the 19th anniversary of its establishment and the 19th anniversary of its establishment. The 19th anniversary of its establishment and the 19th anniversary of its establishment and the 3th anniversary of its establishment and the 19th anniversary of its establishment and the 3th anniversary of its establishment and the 4th anniversary of its establishment.

B. Judgment on the assertion of the non-committee agreement

(1) The defendant asserts that on December 8, 1993, the defendant promised that the plaintiff would accept the decision of the board of directors of the defendant and would not raise any objection thereto in the defendant's provisional society, and that this constitutes an agreement to bring an action, and thus, the part of the claim for confirmation of the status of the president of the Chungcheongbuk Branch and the lawsuit for confirmation of invalidity of the resolution filed on December 8, 1993 is unlawful because it is contrary to the above agreement to bring an action or against the principle of good faith.

(2) Therefore, as seen earlier, in the Defendant Provisional Society held on December 8, 1993, after explaining the circumstances leading up to the dispute between the Nonparty and the Nonparty, the Plaintiff would return to the board of directors, and the said provisional board of directors decided to cancel the appointment of the director of the Defendant Council and to deprive the Plaintiff of the contents of the resolution by the board of directors. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the testimony of the witness Kim Jong-mun alone, among the decisions made in the above provisional society, the Plaintiff’s withdrawal from the board of directors, etc., and decided to cancel the appointment of the director of the Defendant board of directors. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff would return to the Plaintiff until the resolution related to the Plaintiff’s personal affairs. Rather, if the Plaintiff’s testimony was gathered in the whole purport of the argument in the above provisional society, the Plaintiff thought that the resolution was made in relation to the dispute between the Chungcheong branch and Cheong-si branch in the above provisional society, and the purport that he would accept the above resolution. Thus, the above argument is no longer reasonable.

C. Determination as to the assertion that there is no legal interest to seek by the instant lawsuit since the Plaintiff lost its membership in the Cheongju-si Branch under the Defendant’s jurisdiction

(1) On December 21, 1993, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation of the status of the plaintiff holding the status as the head of the branch or the head of the branch, is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

(2) Therefore, the board of directors of the Cheongju-si branch held on December 21, 1993 that the plaintiff was subject to the disposition of expulsion of members with the consent of 11 participants, such as the above Nonparty, etc. shall be as seen earlier. According to each of the evidence Eul Nos. 1 and 11, Article 13 (2) of the above articles of incorporation provides that the officers of the branch shall be elected by the representative general meeting or the general meeting of members of the relevant branch. The directors who attended the board of directors at the time of December 21, 1993 as of December 21, 1993 shall be acknowledged as the facts such as the Lee Jong-si, the New Year-si branch of the Cheongju-si branch of the Cheongju-si branch of the above Cheongju-si branch of Apr. 30, 1993, and the above officers shall be appointed from the 3rd Do representative meeting or the 193rd Do representative meeting of the above officers.

However, on April 30, 1993, the resolution of the representatives' general meeting of the Cheongju-si Branch elected the above non-party as the head of the Cheongju-si Branch is null and void, and the representative selection method at the Cheongju-si General meeting of April 30, 1993 is contrary to the basic principles of the organization or violates good morals and other social order is null and void as follows. On the other hand, on April 30, 1993, the above Cheongju-si Branch had been elected by the representative general meeting of the Cheongju-si Branch of the Cheongju-si branch of the above non-party before the representative general meeting for the election of the Cheongju-si branch of April 30, 193 was held at the Cheongju-si branch of the Cheongju-si branch of the above non-party, and the above Cheongju-si branch of the above non-party's general meeting did not have any effect on the plaintiff's status as the above Cheong-si branch of the above defendant's general meeting.

D. On December 8, 1993, as to the interest in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution to dismiss the director's position in the defendant Provisional Society against the plaintiff in the defendant Provisional Society

(1) The plaintiff sought confirmation of the plaintiff's holding the status of the president of the Chungcheong branch in this case, and at the same time, sought confirmation of the plaintiff's cancellation of the approval of the president of the Chungcheong branch in a temporary society dated December 8, 1993, and sought confirmation of invalidity of the resolution deprived of the plaintiff's position. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff is not a legal interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the above resolution, since the plaintiff is seeking confirmation of the status of the president of the Chungcheong branch in this case's temporary society as of December 8, 1993.

(2) Therefore, it is possible to seek confirmation of the status of the branch director and the defendant director as a separate position that is compatible with the fact that the branch director and the defendant director are ex officio directors of the defendant.

However, since the ordinary general meeting of the Health Center and the council of the Chungcheongnambuk-do as of May 26, 1993 is a general meeting which includes non-qualified representatives, the resolution to elect the plaintiff as the president of the Chungcheongbuk-do branch here is null and void, as seen below, is judged in the judgment on the following merits. Thus, as long as the plaintiff did not hold the status as the president of the Chungcheongbuk-do branch, the defendant's ex officio director from May 26, 1993 cannot become an ex officio director from May 26, 1993. Thus, as long as the plaintiff cannot become an ex officio director of the defendant from the original date, it cannot be said that the plaintiff's right or legal status cannot be said to exist by the above decision to deprive the plaintiff of his position of director, and the above part of the request for confirmation is unlawful as

(3) Next, with respect to the claim for nullification of the resolution to revoke the authorization to revoke the authorization to revoke the authorization to revoke the authorization to revoke the authorization to revoke the authorization, the invalidity of the authorization to revoke the authorization constitutes a premise of the claim to confirm the status of the president of the Chungcheongbuk branch. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff only seeks confirmation of the current status of the president of the Chungcheong branch, the Plaintiff’s objective is sufficiently achieved, and otherwise, seeking nullification of the authorization to revoke the authorization to revoke the authorization to revoke the authorization to revoke the authorization is merely a medium reflect means and is not an appropriate means, so it is unlawful as there is no legal interest in immediate confirmation.

3. On April 30, 1993, at the General Meeting of Representatives of Cheongju-si Branch Offices, the judgment on the claim to nullify the invalidity of the resolution which selected the said Nonparty as the head of the Si/Gun/Gu branch

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Won high

The plaintiff first, according to the proviso of Article 5 (3) of the Cheongju-si Branch, which is a superior agency, should have jurisdiction directly over the City/Do branch, and should have the Cheongju-si Branch be held concurrently in accordance with the above principle of direct jurisdiction, and during that period, the Cheongju-si Branch concurrently held the City/Do branch head without selecting the Si branch head separately. Thus, the resolution of the above Cheongju-si Branch's general meeting based on the official document dated April 9, 1993 by the defendant's Cheongju-si branch's general meeting is null and void as it goes against the above articles of association and customs. Second, according to Article 13 (2) of the articles of association, the officers of the branch should be elected at the general meeting of the Cheongju-si branch's general meeting, which is the representative of the Cheongju-si branch's general meeting, and it is unlawful that the above Cheongju-si branch's general meeting should have been elected for the first time without obtaining approval of the above 16th general meeting.

(2) Sheetion;

First, according to the proviso of Article 5 (3) of the articles of incorporation, it is possible for the Do council to separately operate the Do council and the Do council branch, and even if there are special circumstances, the defendant's board of directors may separately determine it. The defendant's representative at the Do council of delegates on April 9, 1992 delegated the defendant's authority to organize management, etc., and accordingly, the representative general meeting of the Cheong-si branch was legitimate. Since the above direct jurisdiction refers to the general principle of organization, it can not be readily concluded that the Do council head concurrently holds the office of the Do council. Second, since the appointment of the above new and new director at the Do council of Representatives of Chungcheongnam-si is legitimate, it is not against the above 4th general meeting of delegates, the appointment of the non-party director should be held at the Do council of delegates-si and the above 13th general meeting of delegates on April 19, 193, it does not violate the above 4th general principle of organization.

(3) Therefore, we will examine the above issues as follows.

B. Interpretation of the proviso of Article 5(3) of the Articles of Incorporation

(1) Articles of incorporation

The proviso of Article 9(4) of the former Articles of Incorporation (amended on December 3, 1980) provides that "the branch office in the location of the branch office shall be in charge of the branch office without having any branch office in the location of each branch office." However, the proviso of Article 5(3) of the current Articles of Incorporation provides that "However, the branch office in the location of the branch office shall, in principle, be in the jurisdiction of the branch office in the branch office, and if there are special circumstances, the central association may determine it separately in the society." However, the meaning of the above "direct jurisdiction" is not defined, while Article 13(2) of the Articles of Incorporation provides that "the officers of the branch office, the branch office and the branch office and the branch office shall be elected by the relevant representative general meeting or general meeting of members."

(2) The election practices of each chapter and chapter head under the defendant's jurisdiction.

However, the Cheongju-si Branch does not separately elect the head of the Cheongju-si Branch by April 1993, but uses office fixtures, fixtures, etc. with the head of the office to reduce expenses and other budget while holding the Cheongju-si Branch at the same time without holding the Cheongju-si Branch by the Cheongju-si Branch by the Cheongju-si Branch by the Cheongju-si Branch by the Cheongju-si Branch by the Cheongju-si Branch by the Cheongju-si Branch by the Cheongju-si Branch by the Cheongju-si Branch by the Cheongju-si Branch by the Cheongju-si Branch by the Cheongju-si Branch by the Cheongju-si Branch by the Cheongju-si Branch by the Cheongju-si Branch by the Cheongju-si Branch. Meanwhile, the Cheongju-si Branch by the Cheongju-si Branch's 38, Eul-si 39 through 43, the 44-1, 45, and 47, respectively.

(3) Interpretation of the above provision

Therefore, considering the history and purport of the articles of association that requires the branch and its independent organization as above, as well as all circumstances such as the election practices of the branch and sub-branch in the whole country under the defendant's command, "direct jurisdiction" under the above provision means that the branch and sub-branch are organized separately in accordance with separate procedures, but it merely declares the principle that the same person should take charge of affairs, etc. while the members of the superior organization, including sub-branch and sub-branch should concurrently hold office in order to reduce expenses and other budget arising from the overlapping between the branch and sub-branch and sub-branch, and therefore it cannot be concluded that the representative of the sub-branch and other officers of the other sub-branch will concurrently hold office for a considerable period of time without separate election procedures, and therefore, it is desirable that the sub-branch and sub-branch should independently elect the above principle, and thus, it is not desirable that the non-party head and sub-chapter should be elected from the above sub-chapter to the extent that the above provision does not comply with the purpose of the articles of association and sub-chapter.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

C. Whether approval was obtained for a superior meeting in holding a representative general meeting of the Cheongju-si Branch on April 30, 1993

(1) According to Article 13(2) of the articles of incorporation, the officers of the branch shall be elected at the relevant representative general meeting or general meeting of members. However, pursuant to Article 13(5) of the articles of incorporation, the appointment of vacant directors shall be made at the board of directors. Thus, to elect vacant directors at the meeting of the officers of the Cheongju-si branch on April 16, 1993, the election of the above new and Kim Jong-jin is justifiable as it is in accordance with the provisions of the above articles of incorporation.

(2) In addition, according to Article 16 (3) of the articles of incorporation, a chapter general meeting shall be a general meeting, but the representative meeting shall be a general meeting with the approval of a superior meeting. According to the items in subparagraph 6-1 and subparagraph 2 of subparagraph B, the office of Cheongju-si may require the Cheongju-si branch to approve the opening of the representative meeting for the withdrawal of the branch office on April 14, 1993 and recognize the fact that it has been approved by the Cheongju-si branch on the same day. The entries in the items in subparagraphs 26 and 40 of subparagraphs alone are insufficient to reverse the fact of recognition and there is no counter-proof.

The plaintiff acknowledged the establishment of the above evidence Nos. 6-1 and 2 on the fifth date for pleading, and revoked the establishment thereof on the 12th date for pleading, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the establishment thereof is contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the revocation is not effective.

(3) Therefore, this part of the argument is without merit.

D. Determination as to the assertion that the act of the Nonparty’s election of the representatives is invalid as it violates social order

(1) In order for the Cheongju-si Branch to hold a representative general meeting on April 30, 1993, the Cheongju-si Branch delegated the method of appointing representatives from directors and then appointed 27 members designated by the chairman of the Cheongju-si Branch from among the Cheongju-si branches as representatives of the Cheongju-si Branch's general meeting. In accordance with Article 16 (3) of the articles of incorporation, the Cheongju-si Branch shall, in principle, be the Cheongju-si General meeting, but the Cheongju-si General meeting shall be the Cheongju-si General meeting with the approval of the superior general meeting, and there is no provision in the articles of incorporation regarding the method of appointing representatives.

(2) However, even though the Cheongju District Office is merely an organization under the defendant's jurisdiction, it independently performs its activities with its members, organization, organization, budget, human resources, and other physical facilities, and all its members have voting rights (Article 7). Thus, the Cheongju District Office actually has the substance of non-corporate group as non-corporate group. Thus, the provisions of Article 68 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the resolution of the general meeting of members unless otherwise stipulated in the above Article 68. Furthermore, if the Cheongju District Office first seeks to elect the 193 representative general meeting before it was first elected, it did not hold the 3 representative general meeting, which is the basic principle of democracy of the free democracy society, and it did not hold the 19th general meeting of the 19th general meeting of members, and it did not hold the 3 representative general meeting of the 19th general meeting of the 3th general meeting of members, which is the basic principle of the 3th general meeting of members, and did not elect the 1st general meeting of the 9th general meeting of members.

(3) Thus, since the representative general meeting of the Cheongju-si branch of April 30, 1993, which was decided to elect the above non-party as the head of the Cheongju-si branch, was composed of all the representatives appointed pursuant to the invalid election act, the resolution at the general meeting is not effective. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

4. Determination as to the claim that the plaintiff seeks confirmation of the status of the head of Chungcheongbuk-do and the head of Cheongju-si branch under the defendant's jurisdiction

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, on May 26, 1993, was legally elected at the general meeting of the meeting of the meeting of the meeting of the meeting of the meeting of the meeting of the meeting of Chungcheongbuk branch, but the defendant decided to cancel the meeting of the plaintiff without any authority in the temporary meeting of December 8, 1993. In addition, the meeting of the board of directors on December 21, 1993 decided to recommend the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff did not pay the membership fee. Since each of the above resolutions which were implemented without authority are invalid, the plaintiff still sought confirmation of the status of the meeting of the meeting of Chungcheongbuk branch of the defendant, and further, as the plaintiff is holding the status of the meeting of the head of the meeting of the meeting of Chungcheongbuk branch of the above direct jurisdiction, according to the principle of the above direct jurisdiction, the plaintiff is asserting to seek such confirmation.

(b) Validity of a resolution of withdrawal of Do branches at the general meeting of the representatives of Do branches on May 26, 1993.

(1) Therefore, it is reasonable to view whether the Plaintiff was legally elected at the General Meeting of Representatives of the Chungcheongbuk-do Branch on May 26, 1993.

(2) On April 30, 1993, the Cheongju-si General Assembly of the Cheongju-si Branch decided to delegate the authority to appoint representatives of the Cheongju-si Branch recommended by the Cheongju-si Branch to the above Nonparty. Accordingly, 34 representatives, including 7 representatives from the Cheongju-si Branch recommended by the above Nonparty, elected the Plaintiff as the Cheongju-si Branch Chairperson on May 26, 1993 at the Cheongju-si General Assembly of the Cheongju-si Branch of the Cheongju-si branch of the Cheongju-si branch of the Cheongju-si branch of the Cheongju-si. Meanwhile, on April 30, 1993, the resolution to elect the above Nonparty as the representative of the Cheongju-si Branch of the Cheongju-si branch of the Cheongju-si branch of the Cheongju-si branch of the Cheongju-si branch of the Cheongju-si branch of the Cheongju-si branch of the Cheongju-si branch of the above.

(3) Thus, the representative general meeting of the Cheongju-si branch and the above non-party are not in the position of the legitimate representative general meeting or the head of the City/Do branch representing the above Cheongju-si branch on April 30, 1993, and they are representatives of the Cheongju-si branch from their elected Cheongju-si branch, and therefore, the representative general meeting of the Cheongju-si branch on May 26, 1993 including them shall be deemed unlawful as a general meeting including an unqualified representative. Thus, the resolution to elect the plaintiff as the representative of the Cheongju-si branch is also null and void. Thus, the plaintiff's above claim under the premise that the Cheongju-si general meeting of the Cheongju-si branch on May 26, 1993 is the legitimate representative general meeting of the Cheongju-si branch and the above non-party is not in the position of the representative of the Cheongju-si branch without any need to further examine the remaining claims.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the part of the defendant's provisional society dated December 8, 1993, where the plaintiff's provisional meeting of the defendant's Cheongju branch of the defendant's Cheongju branch of the defendant's Cheongju branch of the defendant's Cheongju branch of the defendant's Cheongju branch of the plaintiff's Cheongju branch of the plaintiff's Cheongju branch of the plaintiff's Cheongju branch of the plaintiff's Cheongju branch of the plaintiff's Cheongju branch of the plaintiff's Cheongju branch of the plaintiff's Cheongju branch of the plaintiff's Cheongju branch of the plaintiff's Cheongju branch of the plaintiff's Cheongju branch of the plaintiff's Cheongju branch of the plaintiff's Cheongju branch of the plaintiff's

Judges Kim Tae-hun (Presiding Judge)