logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.05.30 2018나117263
기타(금전)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a judgment as follows. Thus, this is acceptable by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the assertion of invalidation due to the violation of a partial compulsory provision, the Plaintiff asserts that “this case’s joining contract and separate construction contract are concluded in violation of Article 11(7) of the Housing Act, Article 21(1)1(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, and Article 8 of the Defendant’s bylaws, and are null and void, and thus, the Defendant shall return the money paid by the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.”

According to the above facts, at the time of the instant partnership membership agreement and the separate construction agreement, the Plaintiff was qualified as a partner under the Housing Act and the Defendant Association Regulations.

Even if the Plaintiff’s temporary completion of the move-in report with the Plaintiff as the head of the household at the time of the above contract, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have any qualification as a member at the time of the above contract, solely with the provisions of Article 32(5) of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 9405, Feb. 3, 2009; hereinafter “former Housing Act”) and Article 38(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21159, Dec. 9, 2008; hereinafter “former Housing Act”), the prohibition provision of Article 39(1) of the former Housing Act cannot be deemed as being null and void as a matter of course, even if the Plaintiff violated the agreement between the parties, on the ground that the prohibition provision is merely a mere enforcement provision, and cannot be deemed as an effective provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da194575, Jul. 10, 1998; 2055Da15757

arrow