The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Where any member of the association established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”) suffers a direct damage due to a representative agency’s unlawful act such as a director or the head of the association, etc., he may claim damages against the association pursuant to Article 27 of the Urban Improvement Act

However, inasmuch as an indirect damage, such as a loss resulting from a cooperative’s direct damage caused by a representative agency’s tort, resulting in infringement of the cooperative’s economic interests, is not included in the concept of damages under Article 35 of the Civil Act, a cooperative member cannot claim damages against the cooperative.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da19384 delivered on July 27, 1999. The grounds for the claim by the Plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) are as follows: (a) the Defendant, a cooperative established under the Urban Improvement Act, sold and sold an apartment to D and C without being entitled to the sale of the association members, thereby causing losses to the association members in proportion to the difference between the union members’ selling price and the general selling price; and (b) the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff and the selected parties for the amount of damages corresponding to the difference between the association members’ selling price and the general selling price.

However, examining the plaintiff's cause of claim in light of the above legal principles, even if the representative agency of the defendant neglected to perform its duties and sold in lots to a person who is not eligible for membership's parcelling-out price, direct damages without obtaining income equivalent to the difference between the partner's parcelling-out price and the general parcelling-out price shall be deemed to be the defendant who is the partnership, and even if the result is infringed upon the economic benefits that can be attributed to the union members, this is an indirect damages, and the plaintiff and the designated parties