logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원홍성지원 2015.08.13 2015가합264
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act recognizes the capacity of a non-corporate entity as a party to a lawsuit even if an unincorporated association or foundation has an entity as an unincorporated association or foundation and conducts social activities or transactions through its representative or manager, the dispute arising therefrom is the name of that entity and the dispute arising therefrom is intended to be resolved through the lawsuit.

As such, the term "association" refers to a group of many persons organized for a certain purpose, which is determined externally as an organization representing an association (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da30675, Nov. 26, 1991). It refers to a group of non-corporate groups where a certain organization establishes rules having a unique purpose and employs a decision-making body and a representative who is an executive body. The organization's resolution or business execution method is carried out in accordance with the principle of majority majority, regardless of a change due to membership, withdrawal, etc., and the organization is in existence, and it has a representative method, operation of a general meeting or board of directors, etc., composition of capital, management of property, or other important matters determined as a non-corporate group.

(Supreme Court Decision 9Da4504 Decided April 23, 199). According to the records, the Plaintiff is recognized as an organization composed of 200 neighboring residents, who claimed that they were damaged by noise, vibration, etc. caused by construction vehicles, etc. in connection with the E construction work progress around the B, B, and D, from around December 2011, in order to compensate for such damage, and the fact that the Plaintiff was given a unique number by the head of the tax office on March 20, 2014.

However, the above neighboring residents designate the representative F of the Plaintiff as their representative and due to E construction.

arrow