205Da15376 Building name map

Plaintiff Reconstruction Housing Association

Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant:

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2004Na2842 Delivered on February 3, 2005

February 8, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. With respect to the interpretation of the bylaws of the Plaintiff Union, the reconstruction association may stipulate other requirements other than the requirements required by the Housing Construction Promotion Act and its Enforcement Decree as the qualification requirements for the association members in addition to the requirements to be submitted at the time of application for the establishment authorization, and the provisions of these bylaws shall, unless there are special circumstances, be effective

According to the facts established by the court below, Article 10 of the rules of the plaintiff association provides that "any person who succeeds to the rights and obligations of the plaintiff association shall submit a report on the change of the association members in accordance with the prescribed procedures to the association, and shall have the rights and obligations from the time when the competent authority obtains approval for the change of the association establishment from the competent authority." Article 12 provides that the executive officers of the association shall be elected from among the union members. However, the non-party 1 elected as the head of the association from the special general meeting of May 6, 2003 by the

4. Nonparty 2, who is a partner of around 21, completed the registration of transfer of ownership by purchasing king-type apartment (Dong & lake omitted) from Nonparty 2, but did not complete the procedure of modification in accordance with the above regulations, so long as the above regulations cannot be deemed invalid to restrict the rights of successors to membership in an unequal manner without reasonable standards, Nonparty 1 cannot have the rights and obligations as a member, and thus is not eligible to be elected as an officer.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the contents of the resolution on the special general meeting of May 6, 2003 of the Plaintiff Union, which elected Nonparty 1 as the president of the partnership, are not effective against the rules of the Plaintiff Union, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation as alleged in

2. As to the legality of ratification of the special general meeting on July 10, 2003

In light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the officer can not be elected only with a written resolution without holding a general meeting, and even if a non-commissioned member ratified the contents of the resolution to elect the officer in writing after the resolution of the general meeting, the defect in the resolution to elect the officer can not be seen as cured, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is 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 Yang Sung-tae

Justices Cho Go-chul

Justices Kim Gin-tae

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn