(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.02.15 2018가합16495

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.02.15 2018가합16495

마을공공 서류 인계 및 마을기금 반환

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Summary of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The Defendant retired from a village transfer in 2017, and did not transfer a written agreement and a record prepared with the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) which is an important document of the village.

The above agreement concerns monetary compensation for the pollution of groundwater and damage to the village due to smoke and gas caused by fire in the chain near the village, and the recording recording is insufficient to record the contents of meetings of D directors and village developers.

The defendant shall transfer the above agreements and records to the C Village.

B. The Defendant distributed C Village Fund on August 18, 2016 and July 31, 2017, and it needs to be confirmed that the details of distribution are transparent.

The defendant shall disclose the details of the above distribution, transfer the village passbook in the name of the defendant to the village, and shall disclose the details of transactions of five-year deposits in the above passbook to the village unless he/she transfers it to the village.

C. The defendant, as a head of a Ri, shall return to the village the 736,815 won in good faith and 363,185 won in good faith while disbursing the village fund.

2. Since there is no dispute over the judgment on the ground of this safety claim that the C community falls under the collective ownership of an unincorporated association due to natural village, the property falls under the collective ownership of the property. The lawsuit about the collective ownership property can only be conducted by an unincorporated association through a resolution of a general members' meeting in its name or by the whole members of the association as the party to the lawsuit, and the members of the association were the representative of the association or the members of the general members' meeting.

Even if the lawsuit cannot be a party to the lawsuit, and this legal principle is the same to the case where the lawsuit is brought as a preservation act of collective ownership property.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Da44971 Decided September 15, 2005). The plaintiff in this case represents C Village.

참조판례

-대법원 2005. 9. 15. 선고 2004다44971 전원합의체 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.02.14 2018가단206614

-청주지방법원 2016.11.11 2016가단7982

-청주지방법원 2017.08.17 2016가합21442

-서울고등법원 2017.08.18 2017나966

-부산지방법원 2018.01.11 2017가합41418