2014A. 2735 Nullification of a disposition of expulsion as a member

A

B Regional Housing Association

September 18, 2014

October 16, 2014

1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim is all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

It is confirmed that the portion of the expulsion of the Defendant on July 10, 2013 and October 21, 2013 against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties is null and void.

1. Basic facts

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 15 through 18 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 17:

A. The defendant is an association that takes part in the business of constructing apartment units in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government District Housing Association. The plaintiff (the appointed party, hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiffs") are the defendant's members, and D (hereinafter referred to as the "the company of this case") is the defendant's execution agency.

B. The Plaintiffs entered into a membership agreement with the Defendant around November 2010, and prepared a formal membership agreement between October 201 and December 201.

C. Upon the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the obligation to pay part payments under the above membership agreement, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the obligation to pay part payments on December 6, 2012, and notified the Plaintiff of an opportunity to vindicate the expulsion due to the failure to pay part payments on February 27, 2013, and on March 8, 2013, by holding the Alternative Committee and holding a resolution on the expulsion of the Plaintiff members.

D. The designated parties did not perform the obligation to pay the third and fourth intermediate payments under the above union membership agreement. On June 20, 2013, the Defendant urged the designated parties to pay the fourth intermediate payments, and notified the designated parties of an opportunity for vindication to the expulsion due to the non-performance of the part payments on July 11, 2013 and July 25, 2013. On September 9, 2013, the Defendant held a meeting of the Grand Committee and resolved to nominate the designated parties.

E. On October 23, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs that the status, rights and obligations of the members were lost according to the expulsion of each member (hereinafter “instant expulsion disposition”).

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs are members of the defendant's association after receiving an agreement from the representative director E of the company of this case to change their status as a general two-minutes from the members of the association through voluntary sale, and thus, the contract entered into by the plaintiffs is a juristic act subject to the change of status as a voluntary seller, and the plaintiffs refuse to pay part payments as they fail to comply with the above agreement.E violated the expectation interest of Article 148 of the plaintiffs' Civil Code because it did not fulfill the above conditions, and the E interferes with the fulfillment of conditions against the good faith and trust, and thus, the expulsion disposition of

On the other hand, although the union rules must be jointly signed by all union members pursuant to Article 37 (1) 1 (a) (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, the defendant's union rules unilaterally set the company of this case and do not have the consent of all union members. Thus, the expulsion disposition based on the above union rules is null and void.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The defendant did not enter into any agreement with the plaintiffs on the change of status as a voluntary seller, and even if the agreement was concluded, such agreement is null and void since it did not go through a resolution of the general meeting as a contract which will impose a burden on the union members.

In addition, the defendant's association rules are standard rules under Articles 38 and 39 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, and have been enacted with the consent of 73 of 84 members including the plaintiff's hearing, and the association rules have been submitted a list of the parties to the association with the consent of 84 members at the time of obtaining authorization to establish the association.

3. Determination

In light of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 14, the plaintiffs agreed to the effect that "the company of this case shall, upon the request of the plaintiffs, transfer to the former member's position, the former member's command" between the company of this case and the company of this case on Nov. 30, 201. The plaintiffs requested the company of this case to change the name at will on August 13, 2012, August 23, 2012, and September 6, 2012. However, although the company of this case notified the plaintiffs that it would not succeed to the general member's status at the time of member status at the time of September 11, 2012, it is difficult to recognize that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the agreement between the plaintiffs and the company of this case constitutes a violation of the terms and conditions of the contract of this case between the plaintiffs and the members of each of the company of this case.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 20 through 22, the defendant held an inaugural general meeting on Nov. 25, 2010 and established the regional housing association standard rules in the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs with the consent of 73 of 84 members as the defendant's association rules with the consent of 73 of 84 members, and submitted to the head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government a list of the consent of all 84 members to approve the establishment of the association on Dec. 22, 2010, and it can be recognized that the above association agreement contains the plaintiffs' signature. Thus, as alleged by the plaintiffs, the defendant's association agreement cannot be deemed null and void due to the lack of consent of all the union members, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the plaintiffs' assertion, and therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion that the expulsion

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge's demotion;

Judges Kim Tae-hwan

Judges Lee Jae-hoon