Requirements for the resolution of dismissal of union officers at the association’s general meeting convened pursuant to Article 23(4) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (affirmative)

In full view of the details of Articles 23(4) and 24 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 10268, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter “former Act”), and the details of amendments to each provision, etc., Article 23(4) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 10268, Apr. 15, 2010) is a special provision on dismissal of union officers at the proposal of at least 1/10 of union members. In the case of an association general meeting convened for the dismissal of union executives pursuant to the above provision, it is not required that at least 10/10 of union members attend directly pursuant to the proviso to Article 24(5) of

Articles 23(4) and 24 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Amended by Act No. 10268, Apr. 15, 2010)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorneys Shin Tae-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gai-dong 22 Apartment Reconstruction Association (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Park Ho-ju et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na22193 decided December 13, 2011

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The lower court determined that the resolution for dismissal of union officers at the instant special meeting held pursuant to Article 23(4) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 10268, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter “former Act”) did not meet the defect in the process of convening the general meeting and the requirement of direct attendance pursuant to the proviso of Article 24(5) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.

In full view of the contents of Articles 23(4) and 24 of the former Act and the details of amendments thereto, Article 23(4) of the former Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the dismissal of an executive officer of an association upon the proposal of at least 1/10 of the members of the association. In the case of a general meeting of an association convened to dismiss an executive officer of the association under the above provision, it is only required to attend the meeting of a majority of the members and consent of a majority of the members present for the resolution to dismiss the executive officer of the association, and it is not required that at least 10/10 of the members of the association attend the meeting directly pursuant to the proviso of Article

Therefore, the lower court erred in determining that the instant extraordinary general meeting did not meet the requirements for direct attendance under the proviso of Article 24(5) of the former Act.

2. Meanwhile, in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination that the resolution of dismissal of union officers conducted at the general meeting on the ground of defects in the process of convening the special general meeting of this case is justifiable and acceptable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the invalidation of the resolution of the general meeting of this case.

Ultimately, the above error of the judgment of the court below cannot be said to have influenced the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)