1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit falling under the revoked part shall be dismissed.

2...

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. In order to file a lawsuit as to a claim and obligation of a non-corporate group which belongs to the quasi-corporate group that belongs to the quasi-corporate group, the non-corporate group shall undergo a resolution of a general meeting pursuant to Article 276(1) of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da36344, Dec. 10, 199), barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the lawsuit filed under its name without a resolution of the general meeting of employees is unlawful since the requirements for the lawsuit are incomplete

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da64573 Decided July 26, 2007, etc.). B.

In this case, the Plaintiff claimed damages against the Defendant on the ground of nonperformance of the obligation under the project implementation agency contract entered into with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant project implementation agency contract”), and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was passed a resolution of the general meeting when filing the instant lawsuit, which is a regional housing association established under the Housing Act, exercising the right to claim damages against the Defendant, which belongs to the quasi-corporate group, even though it falls under the quasi-corporate group.

The plaintiff argues that the "matters necessary for the implementation of a project" under Article 26 (4) of the plaintiff's bylaws shall be decided by the board of directors of the association. The plaintiff asserts that the lawsuit in this case is necessary for the implementation of the project and is brought through a resolution of the board of directors.

According to the evidence No. 33 of the plaintiff's union rules, Article 26 of the plaintiff's union rules can be acknowledged as being "other matters necessary for the operation of the union and the implementation of the project," among those listed in the resolution and execution affairs of the board of directors' meeting. However, the purport of the above provision is to stipulate exceptions under Article 276 (1) of the Civil Code, and it cannot be deemed as entrusting the board of directors with the right to decide matters concerning the management and disposal of collective ownership. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion on a different premise is justified.