2020Na2012149 Invalidity of the resolution of the Congress

1. A;

2. B

3. C

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

8. H;

9. J;

10. K;

11. L.

12.N

13.0

14. P;

Q. Q.

16. R

17. S.

18. Telecommunication

19. U;

20. V

21.W;

22. X

[Judgment of the court below]

Y Class C Y

Attorney Han-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2020Na576975 Decided February 13, 201

October 22, 2020

November 19, 2020

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part that confirmed the invalidity of a resolution appointing the Z as the president at the ordinary meeting of the Defendant on March 25, 2017 shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' lawsuits corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. 50% of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder 50% by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

A resolution made at an ordinary general meeting held by the Defendant on March 28, 2015 on the agenda in attached Form at the ordinary general meeting held by the Defendant on March 28, 2015, and a resolution appointed the Z as the president at the ordinary general meeting held on March 25, 2

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The reasoning for this part is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited, including the attached Form, pursuant to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. The grounds for the court’s defense, which was common to each of the instant resolutions (the purport that the plaintiff is not a defendant as to the ground that the plaintiff is not a defendant as to this part, are as stated in the grounds from 7th to 8th 5th e.g., the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of

(b) All defenses on the merits of the resolution of appointment of the 3,25th 2017;

In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity or non-existence of a resolution to appoint a clan officer on the ground that there is a defect in the resolution to appoint a clan officer, if a person appointed by such resolution does not hold a position as a new executive officer any longer due to the expiration of the term of office or resignation, etc. and thereafter appointed a new executive officer, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity or non-existence of the resolution to appoint a new executive officer is seeking confirmation of the past legal relations or legal relationship, and there is no benefit in the protection of rights, barring special circumstances such as where the resolution to appoint a new executive officer is non-existent or invalid due to procedural defect or the content defect, or cancelled (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

In full view of each of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 18 through 26, the defendant held a 13th president general meeting on March 23, 2019 at the expiration of the term of the Z and passed a resolution again to elect the Z as the 14th president. According to the judgment of the court of first instance that elected the Z as the 13th president on March 25, 2017, the Z has resigned from the office of the defendant on February 26, 2020, and the defendant held a general meeting to elect the chairman on March 28, 2020 and adopted a resolution to elect Q as the 15th president.

As to this, the plaintiffs decided the scope of the clans subject to the notification by the defendant's sufficient identification of the location of the members and conducted each general meeting without following the procedure. Thus, the above resolution of each general meeting is null and void.

I asserts that it is called.

However, according to the above evidence, the defendant publicly announced the convocation of the general meeting on March 1, 2020 on the agenda of the election of the chairman on March 15, 2020. On March 2, 2020, the defendant issued the first convocation notice to 216 members, including all the plaintiffs, whose whereabouts are identified by a family council, by registered mail (31) and a general mail (185). After that, the defendant issued the second convocation notice to 232 members including 16 members, who were additionally identified on March 16, 2020, by registered mail (31 members) and general mail (201 members). The above convocation notice contains a statement that the defendant's convening of the general meeting can be registered with and requested to attend the general meeting on March 28, 200, and therefore, the defendant's allegation that the second convocation notice was legitimate for 200 members and 200 members who attended the general meeting can not be accepted.

Therefore, insofar as the resolution of the general meeting of March 28, 2020, which elected A Q as the president, is not recognized as non-existence or null and void due to a defect in the contents of other procedures, seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of appointment on March 25, 2017 is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights, since the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the past legal relationship or legal relationship.

3. Determination on the validity of the instant disciplinary resolution

A. The reasoning for this part is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment as set forth in Paragraph B below, since the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 8 to 10 pages 6) is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, this part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

B. Additional determination

Article 34 (Penal Provisions) (1) of the Defendant’s clan Rules, which was applied at the time of the resolution of the instant disciplinary action, only stipulates that the disclosure company may be subject or the qualification of a member may be suspended for a certain period of time if there are grounds for subparagraph (a) through (d). It does not stipulate the same effect as the de facto deprivation of the qualification of a member by indefinite suspension of membership.

Therefore, in the case of clan members, the defendant, if there are certain reasons, may temporarily suspend the membership of the plaintiffs for a reasonable period of time that can be understood as ordinary person if the plaintiffs refuse to accept the disclosure section, and cannot take disciplinary action such as forcing the disclosure section or de facto deprivation of membership for a limited period of time on the condition of the disclosure section. With respect to this case, the resolution of the disciplinary action of this case is based on the condition that the plaintiffs should make the disclosure section as desired by the defendant, or submit a apology, and the status of the members shall be suspended without fixing a period of time if the plaintiffs do not go against the above condition. However, enforcing the disclosure section or the written apology of this case would considerably infringe upon the plaintiffs' personality rights and freedom of conscience by forcing the plaintiffs to form the public trial by itself and make decisions based thereon. Furthermore, according to the resolution of this case, the plaintiffs' disciplinary action of this case, the defendant still does not have the effect of compelling the plaintiffs to be subject to disciplinary action and the defendant's request for qualification for a limited period of time in the future.

Therefore, the resolution of this case not only infringes upon the freedom of conscience of an individual of the plaintiffs, but also has the same effect as the deprivation of the status of a member of a clan permanently against the rules of association, and its validity is not recognized.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the instant lawsuits, the part seeking confirmation of invalidation of a resolution that appointed the Z as the president at the ordinary meeting of the Defendant on March 25, 2017 among the instant lawsuits is unlawful, and thus, it shall be dismissed, and the remainder of the claims shall be accepted as well as the remaining claims are with merit. Since the first instance judgment is unfair upon partial conclusion, the part of the Defendant’s appeal is partially accepted, and the part of the first instance judgment which confirmed that the resolution that appointed the Z as the president at the ordinary meeting of March 25, 2017 of the first instance judgment constituted invalidation is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s lawsuit corresponding

The presiding judge, judge and assistant judge;

Judges or Mine Bureau

Judge So-young