2013. Doz.8457 Damage, Claim

A

1. B regional housing association;

2.C

3.D

4.E

5.F

6.G

7.H

8.I

9.J

10.K

11.L

12.M

13.N

July 25, 2014

October 17, 2014

1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

The primary purpose of the claim is to confirm that Defendant B’s regional housing association (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant B’s association”) is in the status of the Plaintiff’s members of the Defendant B’s association.

Preliminary claim: The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 25,000,000 and 20% per annum from June 13, 2013 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

(1) As of January 9, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the U.S. member of the Defendant Union to acquire rights, such as the status of the member of the Defendant Union.

(2) The Defendant Union is a cooperative established pursuant to the Housing Act for the purpose of acquiring the housing of the residents in the whole area of the P land in the Jeonsan-gu, Jeonju-si, and the rest of the Defendants are the executives or representatives of the Defendant Union.

(b) Disposition of expulsion, etc. against the defendant union 0;

(1) The fact that the Defendant Cooperative held a meeting of the 20th executive officer or representative on November 13, 2012 to require its members to pay KRW 10,000,000 to the members of the Cooperative from November 26, 2012 to December 7, 2012

On November 16, 2012, a resolution was made on the resolution, and the details of the resolution were notified to the members, and the additional time limit for payment was extended by December 14, 2012.

(2) On March 28, 2013, the Defendant Union held a general meeting to order a person who does not fulfill his/her duty to pay additional charges, etc. to refrain from performing his/her duty to pay additional charges, and passed a resolution to handle affairs relating to changes in the status of the union

(3) Meanwhile, on June 13, 2013, the Plaintiff pointed out any doubt or problem as to the performance of the duties of the Defendant Union, including the Plaintiff’s notification from the Defendant Union to 0, and on the premise that the Plaintiff had rights and obligations as a member of the Defendant Union several times from around that time to October 8, 2013, on the premise that the Plaintiff had rights and obligations as a member of the Defendant Union.

(4) However, around August 2, 2013, the Defendant Union notified theO of the fact that it could be expelled if it fails to perform its obligations, such as the payment of project costs, and notified theO of the fact that it failed to perform its obligations, such as the payment of project costs, etc. on September 6, 2013. On September 25, 2013, the Defendant Union notified theO of the fact that it failed to perform its obligations as a member of the association. On September 25, 2013, the Plaintiff, who did not give any particular explanation, confiscated the total amount of the charges already paid in accordance with the association rules, etc. and, on the grounds that it was expelled as of September 30, 2013.

C. Relevant provisions

The Housing Act and its Enforcement Decree, and the rules and regulations of the defendant association relating to the qualification or transfer of the membership of a regional housing association shall be as follows:

Article 32 (Establishment, etc. of Housing Association) of the Housing Act; (1) Method of establishing a housing association; standards for the operation, management, etc. of the housing association; and matters necessary for the establishment requirements and reporting procedures of the workplace housing association under paragraph (3) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree; (2) Persons eligible for membership of a housing association under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act shall be the following persons; (3) Persons who meet the following requirements for authorization for establishment of the housing association (referring to the date before the date of application for authorization for establishment of the housing association; hereafter the same shall apply in this subparagraph) from the date of application for authorization for establishment of the housing association; and (2) persons who own the relevant housing (including the cases where the relevant housing site is located in the position prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport in consideration of the type of housing, method of selection, etc.; hereafter the same shall apply in this subparagraph) or who own the housing for not more than 60-meters of the head of the housing association, including the head of the housing association;

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The parties' assertion

First of all, the Plaintiff is eligible to become a member of the Defendant Union in accordance with the Housing Act and the rules of the Defendant Union. Moreover, the Plaintiff legally acquired the status of a member of the Defendant Union from theO, and notified the Defendant Union several times from June 13, 2013 to June 13, 2013, the Plaintiff is deemed to have the status of a member of the Defendant Union regardless of whether the Defendant Union is performing the duties of transferring the status of a member of the Defendant Union. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation against the Defendant Union as to whether the Plaintiff is a member of the Plaintiff’s association.

On the other hand, the defendant union did not confirm that the plaintiff is eligible to become a partner under the Housing Act, the Enforcement Decree thereof, and the Treaty to acquire the status of a member of the defendant union, and the plaintiff did not implement the procedures prescribed under the Housing Act, the Enforcement Decree thereof, and the Convention, and since theO was expelled from the defendant union through legitimate procedures, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is not a member of the defendant union.

B. Determination

In order for the plaintiff to become a partner of the defendant association, the plaintiff is a householder who has not owned the house from the date of application for authorization for establishment of the housing association to the date of approval for establishment of the housing association pursuant to Article 8 of the covenant of the association or has owned one bond with an exclusive residential area of not more than 60m2 to the date of application for authorization for establishment of the association, and has resided in it for not less than six months at the time of the preceding week at the time of application for authorization for establishment of the association. In order to acquire the status of

It shall be appropriate, and the competent administrative agency shall prepare a summary of the succession of rights and obligations in the partnership with approval seal affixed to the transfer contract, and shall apply to the competent administrative agency for authorization for change of members and obtain authorization for change.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the transfer and acquisition of the status of a union member with theO and notified the Defendant Union of this. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff satisfied the qualification of a union member as prescribed by the Housing Act and the Rules of the Association, or that the Plaintiff fulfilled all the procedures necessary for the transfer of the status of a union member. There is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff notified the plaintiff that he succeeded to the membership status in several times, but the defendant union did not order the above 0 as well. The remaining defendants, who are officers of the defendant union, neglected their duties, such as not conducting the business of taking over the status of the plaintiff's member status, which led to the plaintiff's property damage equivalent to KRW 25,00,000. Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally liable for compensation.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff cannot be a member of the Defendant Union for the foregoing reasons, and that the Defendants did not neglect their duties, and that the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim is unreasonable.

B. Determination

We examine whether the Defendants were liable for damages, as seen earlier, that the Plaintiff did not acquire the status of the assistant members of the Defendant Union, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone.

It is difficult to see that the Defendant Union or the other Defendants neglected to perform their duties, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. (The Plaintiff asserts that, if the Defendant Union did not recognize the Plaintiff’s membership on the ground of the O’s expulsion, the Defendant Union is obligated to pay the remainder remaining after deducting the common contributions from the amount raised by the members pursuant to Article 12(4) of the Union Regulations, so the Defendant Union is also obligated to return the remainder, excluding the total amount of the contributions or the common contributions, to the Plaintiff. However, insofar as the Plaintiff’s procedures for acquiring the status of members cannot be deemed lawful, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant Union

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without examining the remainder of the issue.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Sang-young

Judges Lee Jae-soo

Judges Park Bo-young