[1] Whether a housing reconstruction project association can provide more relaxed provisions than the consent of more than 3/4 of all union members as stipulated in the articles of association of the housing reconstruction project association (affirmative in principle)

[2] The legal nature of "authorization" under Article 20 (3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and the validity of the amended articles of association where such authorization is not obtained (= null

[3] Criteria for determining the validity of the internal regulations of an organization

[1] Article 78 of the Civil Act, Article 20(1)17, Article 24(3)12 and (5) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 31 subparag. 12, and Article 34 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents / [2] Article 20(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas

[2] Supreme Court Order 92Ma54 delivered on July 6, 1992 (Gong1992, 2511) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 91Da29026 delivered on November 24, 1992 (Gong193Sang, 212)

[Appellant] 1 and 5 others (Attorney So Young-young, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

A new housing reconstruction project association;

Seoul High Court Order 2006Ra281 dated June 5, 2006

All reappeals are dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Article 78 of the Civil Act provides that "an incorporated association shall not pass a resolution for dissolution without the consent of at least 3/4 of all the members. However, if other provisions exist in the articles of incorporation, such provisions shall apply." Meanwhile, Articles 20 (1) 17, 24 (3) 12, 24 (5), and 31 subparagraph 12, and Article 34 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents shall go through a resolution of a general meeting, but the dissolution of an association shall be stipulated in the articles of incorporation on the method of resolution. In light of the legislative purport of Article 78 of the Civil Act and the fact that Article 78 of the Act does not stipulate the minimum requirements for resolution for dissolution under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, it may be more relaxed than the consent of at least 3/4 of all the members in determining the requirements for resolution for dissolution, and it shall be valid unless it is

The judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds for reappeal.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Article 20 (3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides that "where a cooperative amends its articles of association, it shall obtain approval from a majority of its members and obtain approval from the head of the Si/Gun." In this context, approval from the head of the competent Si/Gun, etc. is a supplement to the basic act subject to such approval to complete the legal effect, and the amended articles of association is null and void (see Supreme Court Order 92Ma54 delivered on July 6,

According to the records, although the defendant union had amended its articles of association on July 23, 2003 through a general meeting of members, it can be known that the amended articles of association did not obtain approval from the head of the competent Gu. Thus, the amended articles of association is invalid. Therefore, the defendant union's resolution of dissolution cannot be applied to the above amendment, and even if the defendant union did not apply the previous articles of association within two years after the amendment of its articles of association, it cannot be said that it violated the principle of trust even if the defendant union did not apply the previous articles of association.

In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the re-appellant's assertion that the new articles of incorporation should be applied in determining whether the defendant union satisfies the requirements for decision of dissolution, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the effect of

3. On the third ground for appeal

The articles of incorporation of a juristic person and the detailed regulations for its business activities and other internal regulations shall be deemed valid unless there are special circumstances, except where it is deemed that the decision is considerably unfair in light of social norms, such as the violation of good morals and other social order, or the decision procedures are deemed to have been significantly inconsistent with the justice (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da29026 delivered on November 24, 192).

The court below held that the old articles of association of the defendant association cannot be deemed valid on the ground that the requirements for resolution of dissolution, etc. of the old articles of association of the defendant association are not provided on a daily basis, but can be gradually mitigated. The court below held that the old articles of association of the defendant association cannot be deemed to be considerably unfair in light of social norms or to be in violation of justice. In light of records, the judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law as to the

4. On the fourth ground for appeal

The court below determined that there was no evidence that non-applicants of the defendant partnership at the time of the resolution for dissolution of the defendant partnership did not lose membership. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to membership qualifications, etc. as otherwise

5. Therefore, all reappeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)