Whether there is a legal interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the previous resolution, in case where there is a legitimate ratification resolution on the previous resolution (negative)

If a fishing village fraternity ratified the previous resolution that was null and void for the distribution of compensation in an extraordinary general meeting convened and resolved by a legitimate procedure, this would have been a new resolution with the same content as the previous resolution. Therefore, there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation of nullity as to the previous invalid resolution, which is not a new ratification resolution.

Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 139 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Appointed Party) 1 and one other (Attorneys Han Man-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Cro fishing village fraternity

Daejeon High Court Decision 95Na670, 687 delivered on May 27, 1997

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The litigation costs are dismissed. Three minutes of the litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder are assessed against the defendants.

ex officio deemed.

The court below found that the defendant fishing village fraternity is a non-corporate fishing village fraternity consisting of fishermen residing in the ○○○, △△△△△, △△△, and △△△△△, which is established by the non-party Korea Electric Power Corporation, that the non-party Korea Electric Power Corporation lost the fishery right to 15 fishing grounds located in the △△△ branch line due to the construction project of the Earthquake-gun Electric Power Plant operated by the non-party Electric Power Corporation, and thus the compensation was paid, the court below held a special general meeting on September 24, 193 and passed the above regulations by holding a special general meeting on September 24, 1993. However, in holding the above special general meeting, the defendant did not send a muster notice to the members, but notified some members of the convocation of the general meeting by posting it on the bulletin board of the community hall or by broadcasting to the members of the community and notified some members of the convening of the general meeting only by telephone or personal means, and therefore, the resolution of this case is unlawful and void, while the defendant held the general meeting resolution of this case.

However, if a fishing village fraternity ratified the previous resolution on the distribution of compensation for losses in an extraordinary general meeting convened through legitimate procedures and resolved by the fishing village fraternity as it is, it shall be deemed that the previous resolution was made with the same content as the previous resolution. Thus, with respect to the previous invalid resolution which is not a new ratification resolution, there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation of nullity (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da53419 delivered on April 11, 1995).

Thus, although the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed unlawfully, the court below and the court of first instance have judged on the merits. Thus, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed ex officio and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be reversed, and the case shall be directly tried as follows.

As seen above, the instant lawsuit is dismissed on the ground that it is unlawful for the foregoing reasons, and in applying Articles 96, 90, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of total costs, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)