beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. On July 201, the Defendant paid the penalty for compelling the performance to the Plaintiff at the time when he/she was in office as the head of the Sungsung-si, the Defendant withdrawn KRW 13,949,00 from the Village Association Fund and the Operation Fund and embezzled the amount of KRW 13,94,00, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the said money to the Plaintiff.
B. The lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since the plaintiff, a non-corporate body, who is a non-corporate body in the form of a lawsuit concerning collective property, is subject to a resolution of the general meeting of members. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case against the defendant without a resolution of the general meeting of members.
On December 15, 2014, the Defendant repaid the embezzlement amount claimed by the Plaintiff to C’s account, the chairperson of the Ari Arbitration Committee, the Plaintiff’s financial account. Since the Defendant’s money to be repaid is the fund of the Plaintiff and the Ari Arbitration Committee, the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless.
2. The lawsuit concerning the collective ownership of the property to be determined on the defense of this safety is unlawful by holding a special authorization of the class for filing the lawsuit in its name by a non-corporate group, or by holding all its members as a party to the lawsuit in the form of an indispensable co-litigation. The lawsuit filed by a non-corporate group without a resolution of a general meeting of members is unlawful.
(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff is an organization established to promote friendship and friendship among Ariri Village Residents, the Plaintiff was part of the purchase price of land registered as owned by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was part of the purchase price of land registered as owned by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff on November 12, 2015, based on the overall purport of the pleadings, in light of the following: (a) Domination; (b) No. 8; and (c) No. 8; and (d) No. 3-1 and No. 3-2; and (b) the purport of the entire pleadings in accordance with the aforementioned legal principles.