In a case where all officers appointed by a resolution of appointment of officers of the redevelopment association general meeting resign and a successor officer is elected by a new resolution of the general meeting, whether there is legal interest in seeking nullification or non-existence of the first resolution of appointment of officers (negative with qualification)

In a case where all officers appointed by a resolution of initial appointment of officers of the redevelopment association and a new officer is elected by a new resolution of the general meeting, seeking confirmation of the absence or invalidity of the resolution of initial appointment of officers is merely a claim for confirmation of legal relations or legal relations in the past and thus lack of the requirements for protection of rights. However, if there are special circumstances such as the absence or invalidity due to defects in the resolution of the new general meeting or the cancellation of the resolution, there is a legal interest to seek confirmation of the absence or invalidity of the resolution of initial appointment of officers. However, since the new general meeting is convened by an officer appointed by the resolution of initial appointment of officers, the reason of the general meeting convened by an unentitled person cannot be considered as the reason for invalidation. If this is considered as the reason for invalidation, the invalidity of the first resolution of appointment of officers cannot be seen as the reason for invalidation, which would result in confusion in legal relations and significantly undermine legal stability.

Articles 13 and 21 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, Article 68 of the Civil Act, Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Da50427 Decided February 24, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1439) Supreme Court Decision 93Da6138 Decided July 28, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2958), Supreme Court Decision 96Da24309 Decided October 11, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3321)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jae-chul, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Relay 4-1 District Housing Improvement and Development Cooperatives (Law Firm Small Network, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na20801 delivered on June 16, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In a case where all officers appointed by a resolution of initial appointment of officers of the redevelopment association and the subsequent officer is elected by a new resolution of the general meeting, seeking confirmation of the absence or invalidity of the resolution of initial appointment of officers is merely a claim for confirmation of legal relations or legal relationship in the past and thus lack of the requirements for protection of rights. However, in a case where there are special circumstances such as the absence or invalidity of the resolution of the new general meeting is recognized due to defects or the cancellation thereof, there is a legal interest to seek confirmation of the absence or invalidity of the resolution of initial appointment of officers. However, since the new general meeting is convened by an officer appointed by the resolution of initial appointment of officers, the reason of the general meeting called a general meeting convened by an unentitled person cannot be deemed to be the reason for invalidation. If this is deemed to be the reason for invalidation, the invalidity of the first resolution of appointment of officers would result in the confusion in legal relations and significantly undermine legal stability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da61388, Jul. 28, 1995; 209Da396396.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, at the first general meeting of December 20, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "first general meeting"), the plaintiff was appointed as the head of the association, and the non-Confidence was resolved at the special general meeting of January 15, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the "second general meeting"), and the non-party 1 was appointed as the head of the association, the non-party 2 and nine directors, and the non-party 3 and the non-party 10 were appointed as representatives, respectively. In order to seek confirmation of the second general meeting resolution, the court below rejected the lawsuit of this case on the ground that the above non-party 1, who was elected as the head of the association at the second general meeting of April 22, 1998, did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the non-party 2's appointment of directors and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's appointment of the above non-party 1 to the above general meeting of May 2, 1998 (hereinafter referred to the above non-party 1).

In addition, the court below also recognized that the third general meeting of the defendant union attended and convened 186 of the 318 members of the defendant union (including 10 persons entrusted). Since the number of the members authorized to establish the defendant union is 373, the 186 members present at the third general meeting falls short of a majority of the quorum stipulated in Article 19(1) of the articles of association, and thus the third general meeting resolution is null and void. However, the quorum for the third general meeting should be based on the number of members at the time of the general meeting, and it shall not be based on the number of members at the time of authorization to establish the association

2. On the second ground for appeal

The appeal on the merits that the second general meeting resolution is invalid or non-existence shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal, since the court below dismissed the lawsuit in this case and judged incidentally without influence to the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)