logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.09.22 2016노649
도시및주거환경정비법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant asserted that F was aware of the delay in paying the liquidation amount of the association, requested perusal of documents and related materials related to the implementation of the rearrangement project in bad faith and repeatedly with intent to obstruct the work of the Defendant and the association, and provided the data kept by the association after receiving authoritative interpretation from the competent administrative agency as to whether F was obligated to provide the said unfair requests.

The defendant's act is a legitimate act that does not violate social rules.

B. Improper argument of sentencing is unfair because the sentence imposed by the lower court (1.2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Inasmuch as it is evident that the FF’s request for perusal and reproduction of the materials related to the implementation of the rearrangement project and the materials related to the F’s request for perusal is subject to the request for perusal, even if there were any materials not kept by the partnership among the materials for which the F’s request for perusal was made, the Defendant could comply with the request by providing a substitute for other materials kept by specifying the same purport.

On the other hand, as argued by the defendant, the passbook of sales revenue was discarded.

In light of the legislative purport of the provision on the duty to peruse and copy documents and related data related to the implementation of a rearrangement project, even if the F and his/her spouse request from the Cooperative from time to time before the instant case, even if the G, who is the F and his/her spouse, frequently requested to copy data from the Cooperative, considering the following: (a) transparent promotion of the rearrangement project; (b) disclosure that the Plaintiff’s right to know is satisfied; and (c) the legislative intent of the provision on the duty to peruse and copy; and (d) it is apparent that the data requested by F to

arrow