[1] Where the head of the previous association whose performance of duties has been suspended after a reconstruction association's suspension of performance of duties and the appointment of an acting director for the president of the association is decided and subsequently appointed as the president of the association, whether the former president of the association has legitimate power of representation (negative)

[2] The case holding that an agreement between the reconstruction association and the apartment owner, etc. in the project zone that the reconstruction association refused to move is an act within the ordinary business scope of the association where the head of the association can act as the representative of the association

[1] Even if the former president whose execution of duties was suspended for the president of a reconstruction association and who was appointed by an acting president was again appointed as the president of a reconstruction association after a provisional disposition order to appoint an acting president was rendered, only the acting president may legitimately represent the association unless the provisional disposition order is revoked. The president of the former president of the association who was appointed as the president of the association shall not have the power of representation regardless of the legitimacy of the resolution to appoint the president.

[2] The case holding that the agreement between the reconstruction association and the apartment owner, etc. in the project zone that the reconstruction association refused to move is an act within the ordinary business scope of the association where the head of the association can act as the representative of the association

[1] Articles 59 and 63 of the Civil Act, Article 714(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 407 and 408(1) of the Commercial Act / [2] Articles 59 and 63 of the Civil Act, Article 714(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 407 and 408(1) of the Commercial Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da5638 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong1992, 1850) Supreme Court Decision 97Da12167 delivered on September 9, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3054)

Annual Reserve Reconstruction Association (Attorney Yoon Il-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Choi-ju et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na32818 delivered on September 29, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff. Of the Plaintiff’s first head indication of the original head of the judgment, “non-party 1 of the representative’s partnership” shall be corrected to “non-party 2 of the representative’

1. In order to promote a reconstruction project, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff, a reconstruction association established under the Housing Construction Promotion Act, filed the lawsuit of this case against the defendant, who is a member of the association, seeking ownership transfer registration or surrender based on trust against the defendant, who is a member of the association of the association, and that the non-party 1, who was the head of the association of the plaintiff on December 11, 1998, pending the lawsuit at the court below, was suspended from performing his duties in accordance with the provisional disposition order issued by other court and appointed the non-party 2 as his acting representative. After the non-party 1 selected the plaintiff as the head of the association on April 2 of the same year from the special general meeting convened by the non-party 2, 199 to the non-party 1, who was selected as the head of the association and refused to move on behalf of the plaintiff on April 2 of the same year, and had two appraisers appointed by the court appraise the market price (market price stipulated in Article 48 (4) of the Multi-Unit Building Act) of the plaintiff as the representative.

However, even if Nonparty 1 again was appointed as the president of the Plaintiff’s partnership after the provisional disposition order suspending the performance of duties against Nonparty 1, who was the president of the Plaintiff’s partnership, and appointing the acting president of the Plaintiff’s partnership, so long as the above provisional disposition order has not been revoked, only the acting president may represent the Plaintiff lawfully. Nonparty 1, who was newly appointed as the president of the partnership, shall not have the power of representation regardless of whether the appointment resolution is lawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da5638, May 12, 1992; 97Da12167, Sept. 9, 197). Thus, even if the court below acknowledged that Nonparty 1 reached the above agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of the provisional disposition by suspending the performance of duties and by appointing the acting representative.

However, according to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, while the plaintiff appointed a legal representative and performed the case in this case, he applied for the change of the plaintiff's representative from Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 2 through the legal representative who was subject to a provisional disposition order to appoint Nonparty 2 as an acting representative. Nonparty 2 ratified all the litigation conducted by the former plaintiff's representative to the court below. The above agreement with the plaintiff was also made by the plaintiff's legal representative on behalf of the plaintiff, and the above agreement was also expressed as the plaintiff's representative as the plaintiff's representative " Nonparty 1, 2, and 2, the representative of the association." Thus, the above agreement can be deemed as made by the plaintiff's representative on behalf of the plaintiff. Meanwhile, the plaintiff's legal representative, the plaintiff's acting representative, had reached the above agreement with the defendant in order to smoothly settle disputes arising in the course of promoting a reconstruction project and to implement a reconstruction project as soon as possible, and the above agreement was not only an act within the ordinary scope of the association's business. Thus, the plaintiff's conclusion is justified.

Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that there was an error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or incomplete deliberation affecting the judgment.

2. The court below is just in rejecting all of the plaintiff's arguments against the plaintiff, because the plaintiff did not go through the resolution of the general meeting of association members in making the above agreement with the defendant, but did not go through the resolution of the general meeting of association members, and the above agreement cannot be made only by the resolution of the council of association, and the above agreement was made through legitimate procedures, and the market price appraisal of the apartment of this case made by two appraisers appointed by the court in accordance with the above agreement was made lawfully in accordance with the agreement and cannot be deemed to have been made unlawfully, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, the incomplete hearing, or the misapprehension of the legal principle, as argued in the Grounds for Appeal. Accordingly, all of the grounds for appeal on

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. In the first head of the judgment of the court below, "the representative non-party 1" in the plaintiff's indication of the first head of the judgment of the court below is obvious that "the representative non-party 2, the representative of the partnership,

Justices Cho Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)