The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of Article 59(2) of the Civil Act
A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) in full view of the evidence adopted by the lower court, the Defendant’s representative was listed as C before the change of the representative on April 27, 201; (b) in the position of an apartment development project around E farm from around 2000 to the commencement of the apartment development project; (c) from around October 2004, the head of the Defendant’s land development promotion committee was the president; (d) C entered into a contract on behalf of the Defendant under the position of a standing adviser at the time of concluding the contract with the construction implementer; (c) was directly used in the position of a standing adviser even when issuing a receipt on behalf of the Defendant; and (c) was registered as the Defendant’s representative before the change of the representative on April 27, 201; and (c) was recorded in the name of the head of the Defendant’s corporation and the head of the Defendant’s association at the time of signing the agreement with the construction implementer; and (d) was indicated as the Defendant’s present representative at the instant investigation agency.
B. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.
(1) The appointment of the representative, who is the executive body of the defendant, composed of residents in the G settlement village, is stipulated by the regulations or custom, but it does not so.