[1] Ownership relationship of apartment buildings sold to the general public by the housing association (=collective ownership of all members of the association) and method of disposal thereof

[2] Whether Article 126 of the Civil Act applies mutatis mutandis to the act by the representative of a housing association to dispose of a building without a resolution of the general meeting of the association members (negative)

[1] Articles 275 and 276 of the Civil Act, Article 3 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act / [2] Articles 126, 275, and 276 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 200Da10246 Decided May 29, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1459), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da62582 Decided July 10, 2001, Supreme Court Decision 2000Da966 Decided September 10, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2423)// [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da57679 Decided February 8, 2002

T. T. P. T.T.

Ethiopia

Seo-gu District Post Offices and 30 others

Daejeon High Court Decision 98Na5034 delivered on October 11, 2001

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. In a case where a housing association established to build a collective housing of its members as a member of a non-family housing association is an act with the unique purpose of an organization called a collective housing construction project, and there is a representative who is an executive agency with regulations and regulations, and the method of resolution or execution of business has been conducted in accordance with the principle of majority of the general meeting, and the organization itself exists without relation to the change following the withdrawal of its members, etc., the association constitutes a non-corporate association regardless of its name (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da18271, Jul. 7, 200). Thus, if the housing association established to build a collective housing of its members, the part of the newly constructed and completed as a principal agent belongs to the collective ownership of all its members, and if the articles of association or regulations have been stipulated in the articles of association of the housing association as to the management and disposition of collective housing, it shall follow the resolution at the general meeting of its members, and such act without going through such procedure shall be null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da6960, May 2969, 20000).

The court below, after compiling the adopted evidence, found the facts as stated in its decision. The defendant Seo-gu post office housing association established under the Housing Construction Promotion Act (hereinafter referred to as the "the defendant housing association") established for the construction of housing with public officials working in Seo-gu post office and the homeless working in its affiliated countries with certain conditions as its members. It continues to exist as an organization for the original purpose of housing construction project without any change in the members' joining or withdrawal. Since important matters such as the methods of officers and representatives, the operation of general assembly, management of properties, etc. are determined by the regulations, and the association has an organization as an organization, it shall be deemed as a non-corporate association even though it uses the name of the association. The rules of the defendant housing association set the representative authority of the head of the association and set the rules of the association under Article 12, by prescribing the matters approved by the general meeting of members of the association under Article 14, which limit the representative authority of the head of the association which is the representative of the defendant housing association, and it is not justified in the judgment of the court below as to the above disposal of the defendant's association's collective ownership or the general meeting of this case.

B. The defendant housing association's representative, a non-corporate company, has no authority to make a decision on the disposal of property belonging to collective ownership by association members without a resolution of the general meeting of association members. Thus, the provisions on representation of expression under Article 126 of the Civil Act shall not apply to the disposal of the instant building, which is collective ownership by the representative of the defendant housing association (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da57679 delivered on February 8, 2002).

In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the plaintiff's assertion as to the expression representation, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the expression representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

C. The claim in the grounds of appeal that the sale price for the building of this case was appropriated as the construction price for the apartment of the Defendant housing association, and that the members of the Defendant housing association did not raise any objection thereto, the members of the Defendant housing association impliedly ratified the sale contract of this case, or that the Defendant housing association cannot assert the invalidity of the sale contract of this case under the good faith principle is merely a new argument that comes to the final appeal without submitting it up to the date of the original judgment, and it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground of appeal. Further, the reason as alleged by the Plaintiff cannot be seen as an implied ratification of the sale contract of this case by the members of the Defendant housing association, or the Defendant housing association's assertion that the sale contract of this case is null and void

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Even if the sales contract of this case was duly concluded by the representative of the defendant's association, a non-corporate company, the liability belongs to the defendant's association, which is the subject of independent rights and obligations, not to be borne by the remaining defendants except the defendant's association, which is its members (hereinafter referred to as "Buss defendants") (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da18271 delivered on July 7, 200), and the judgment of the court below to the same effect is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to non-corporate associations, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

The remaining Defendants’ assertion in the grounds of appeal that the Defendant’s association and the head of the association are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the Defendant’s tort by the Defendant’s association and the head of the association, is not a legitimate ground of appeal, as they are newly asserted in the final appeal. Moreover, the remaining Defendants, the members of the Defendant’s association, cannot be deemed as the status of the Defendant’s association or the head of the association, and therefore, without any further review, the allegation in the grounds of appeal on this part is groundless.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)