requirements to deny the exercise of rights for reasons of violation of the principle of good faith.

Article 2 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 2003Da1601 Decided June 11, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1148) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da5556 Decided October 28, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1946) Supreme Court Decision 2005Da64552 Decided November 29, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 2001)

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Noh Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and eight others

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na67455 decided May 8, 2009

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the claim for the medical expenses of this case arising from the medical treatment conducted by the plaintiffs' members constituted the Korea National Federation of Korean National Foundation established in accordance with the procedures provided in the Medical Service Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Medical Service Act and the National Health Insurance Act as

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in rejecting the plaintiffs' assertion that the claim of this case belongs to the plaintiffs in the internal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, even if the claim of this case belongs to the Federation of the Korean National Foundation of Civilization, which is an incorporated association, for the reasons stated in its reasoning, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the reversion relation

3. In order to deny the exercise of the right on the ground that it violates the principle of trust and good faith, there must be a justifiable situation in which the other party provided good faith to the other party, or the other party objectively viewed it as a good faith, and the exercise of the right against such other party’s good faith should reach an extent that is not acceptable in light of the concept of justice (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da64552, Nov. 29, 2007, etc.).

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the Defendants’ receipt of a seizure and collection order against the instant medical expenses cannot be deemed an exercise of rights contrary to the good faith principle, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the good faith principle or incomplete hearing, as otherwise alleged in

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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 Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)