[1] Article 58 of the Civil Act, Article 307 of the Civil Execution Act

Plaintiff 1 and 17 others (Attorney Park Young-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Housing Improvement Development Cooperatives (Attorney Kim Dong-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na55979 delivered on February 10, 2004

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. If a resolution of a general meeting of partners of a redevelopment cooperative established under the former Urban Redevelopment Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Act No. 6852, Dec. 30, 2002) is valid, members of the redevelopment cooperative, in principle, are in a legal relationship under restraint. Thus, in a case where there are grounds for invalidation in a resolution of a general meeting, such as the procedures for convening a general meeting of partners or method of resolution, defects in the contents of resolution, etc., the members of the redevelopment cooperative shall have

The court below held that the contents of the resolution adopted at the general meeting of this case and the contents of the resolution at the general meeting of this case on September 5, 2002 are not identical, and therefore the interests in the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity cannot be deemed to exist due to ratification of the resolution of the general meeting of this case or new resolution of the same contents. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interests in confirmation in the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity confirmation as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and on the other hand, even if the redevelopment project implemented by the defendant completed the procedure such as approval of the management and disposal plan, approval of use inspection, announcement of sale disposition, transfer registration, etc., it cannot be readily concluded that the plaintiffs'

2. Even if there was a resolution for re-election of a director whose execution of duties has been suspended at a general meeting of partners of the redevelopment cooperative after the judgment of provisional disposition suspending the performance of duties by the director of the redevelopment cooperative, that alone does not immediately lose the judgment of provisional disposition immediately, but the order of provisional disposition loses its effect only after a judgment of revocation of preservation due to changes in circumstances, etc. was made (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Da12167, Sept. 9, 1997; 99Da62890, Feb. 22, 2000, etc.).

In the same purport, the court below acknowledged the fact that the president of the partnership, in convening an ordinary general meeting under Article 18 (4) of the defendant's articles of association, shall undergo a resolution of the board of directors on the purpose, agenda, date, time, place, or method of execution of the general meeting when the president of the partnership conveness the general meeting of this case as of August 16, 2001 when the non-party 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 was suspended from performing his duties until the general meeting was held in accordance with the provisional disposition order, and held that the resolution of the general meeting is null and void because the non-party 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 did not go through a resolution of the board of directors of August 16, 201 after the provisional disposition suspending the performance of duties against the director, unless the provisional disposition order is revoked. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles on the validity of the disposition suspending the performance of duties of the corporate director.

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

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)