In a case where Party A entered into an agency contract with Party B and implemented a collective housing construction project, and Party B was the representative director of Party B, and Party B was the agent of another regional housing association at which Party B’s representative director was in charge of the president of the association; Party B was not qualified as the representative of the association, and Party B demanded Party A to verify the absence of status as the president of the association, the case holding that Party C, in light of all the circumstances, is deemed to have lost Party C’s status as the president of the association on the ground that Party C had the grounds for disqualification as an officer under Article 13(1)7 of the Housing Act and Article 18(1)5 of the Union Rules, and thus, Party C still has the interest in seeking confirmation of the absence of status as the president of the association.

A regional housing association concluded an agency contract with B and implemented a multi-family housing construction project, and Byung was the representative director of Jung-company, and Jung-company was the agent of another regional housing association at which the representative director of Eul-company was in charge of the president of the association. Accordingly, Gap association members were not qualified as the representative of the association, and the absence of the status of the president of the association against Gap association was sought against Eul association.

The case holding that since the purport of Article 13 (1) 7 of the Housing Act which provides that an agent officer or employee of a housing association shall not become an officer or employee of a cooperative, and the purport of Article 18 (1) 5 of the Housing Act which provides for the purport of Article 13 (1) 7 of the Housing Act and Article 18 (1) 5 of the Regulations of a cooperative which provides for the same contents is to prevent any kind of loss to the association members by prohibiting the partnership’s officers who shall represent the interests of the association members and the agent agent who is in the position of the other party to the transaction of the association from performing their duties for the interests of an individual or an agent, and it is reasonable to see that the association’s officers have avoided the above provisions of the Housing Act and the regulations of a cooperative by leaving the representative director of an agent without a mutual crossing of each association, and as long as such, there exists a risk of damage to the association members due to such risk, Byung still loses the status of the president of the association as an executive officer under the above Housing Act and the regulations of the association, and there is still no interest to the association president.

Article 13(1)7 of the Housing Act, Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and 22 others (Attorneys Lee Han-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samnam-dong District Housing Association

October 30, 2019

1. It is confirmed that Nonparty 1 is not in the position of president of the defendant association.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant Cooperative is a regional housing association established for the purpose of constructing multi-family housing in the Ulsan-gun (number omitted), Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “Ulsan-gun”), and the Plaintiffs are the members of the Defendant Cooperative.

B. The Defendant Union concluded an agency contract with S&A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S&A”), and implemented the said apartment building project. The president of the Defendant Union’s association is Nonparty 1 and S&A’s representative director.

C. On the other hand, Nonparty 1 was the representative director of the Taedong Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Taidong Industrial Development”), and the development of Tae Taedong Industrial Development is the agent of the inter-party 2, whose representative director is Nonparty 2, who is in charge of the president of the partnership (hereinafter “non-party 2”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 22, 26 (including additional evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) In a way that Nonparty 1 serves as the representative director of the agent of the non-party partnership, and the head of the non-party partnership serves as the representative director of the agent of the defendant partnership, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 act as the agent of the defendant partnership. Furthermore, the above two companies are likely to be deemed as the same company, such as where the head office is equal to the location of the head office and where the same executive is located.

This is because the non-party 1, the president of the defendant association, was the representative director of each other in order to avoid the grounds for disqualification under the Housing Act and the Articles of association of the defendant association, and the non-party 1 is not qualified as the representative of the defendant association.

2) Since the above non-party 1 abandons his duties as the representative of the defendant association and delays the liquidation of the defendant association, he is not qualified as a representative.

3) The election of Nonparty 1 as the representative is in accordance with the resolution of the inaugural general meeting. The written resolution at the time of the inaugural general meeting is submitted from the members before the public notice or notice was given, and it is not effective, and if the written resolution was excluded, the majority of the members was not present at the time of the inaugural general meeting. Therefore, the resolution of the inaugural general meeting which appoints Nonparty 1 as the representative is so

B. The defendant union's assertion

In order to solve the problem of repayment of real estate loan under the name of the association, it is not delayed, but it is not neglected to perform the business as the president of the association, and in case of deprivation of the qualification of the president of the association by the non-party 1, it is against the interests of the association because it

3. Determination

(a) The grounds for disqualification of the president of an association under the Housing Act and the rules of the defendant association are as follows:

▣ 주택법

Article 13 (Disqualifications for Executives of Partnership)

(1) None of the following persons shall become an officer of a cooperative:

7. An officer or employee of the registered business operator or agency who is the joint business operator of the relevant housing association;

(2) Where any cause falling under any subparagraph of paragraph (1) occurs, the relevant officer shall automatically retire.

▣ 피고조합 규약

Article 18 (Disqualification, Disqualification, Disqualification, etc. of Executives)

1. No person falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be appointed as an officer or representative of a cooperative:

(v) an officer or employee of the City Corporation or agency of the Housing Association;

B. The purport of the provisions of the Housing Act that prohibit an officer or employee of the housing association from becoming an officer or employee of the association, and the provisions of the rules of the defendant association, which have the same contents, is to prevent the partnership’s officers who must represent the interests of the association members and the agent who is in the position of the other party to the transaction of the association as an agent, from taking advantage of the interests of the association, and to prevent damages to the association members by performing the duties for the interests of

C. On March 31, 2018, it is recognized that Nonparty 1 was the head of the Defendant’s association and the representative director for the development of Thai Industries; Nonparty 2 was the head of the Nonparty’s association and the representative director for the development of Thai Industries; Nonparty 2 was the Defendant’s association and the development of Thai Industries was the agent of the Nonparty’s association as seen earlier; according to the aforementioned evidence, the location of the development of Thai Industries is as follows: (i) the location of the development of S&A and Thai Industries is U.S.; and (ii) Nonparty 3 (the name omitted before the name omitted) among the promoters was the internal director of S&T; and (iii) retired on March 31, 2018, it is reasonable to conclude that the above facts alone are the same company with the development of Thai Industries; (iv) in light of each of the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the executive officer of the Defendant’s association or the agent’s association’s association’s agreement or its execution of duties would cause damage to Nonparty 1 and the agent.

D. Thus, without further review of the plaintiffs' remaining arguments, since the non-party 1 of the defendant union's president and non-party 1 has the grounds for disqualification as an officer under Article 13 (1) 7 of the Housing Act and Article 18 (1) 5 of the Rules of the defendant union, it shall be deemed that the status of the president of the defendant union should be automatically lost.

E. However, the non-party 1 still performs the duty of liquidation as the president of the defendant association. Thus, the plaintiffs have the interest of confirming the non-existence of status as the president of the defendant association as a member of the defendant association.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Yong-du (Presiding Judge)