beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the statement of the first instance court's decision, except for the part added as stated in paragraph (2) below. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2.In addition, the following shall be added to the sixth page 2 of the judgment of the first instance.:
The defendant asserts that, in borrowing the above money from the plaintiff, the act of borrowing the above money is null and void because it did not go through the resolution of the residents' general meeting and the consent of 1/2 or more of the owners of lands, etc.
Article 32 of the Operating Rules shall raise funds for the operation of the Promotion Committee and the implementation of the project pursuant to the following subparagraphs:
1. Expenses to be paid by owners of land, etc.;
2. Article 8(1)2 of the Act provides that "loans from financial institutions and specialized management businessmen of rearrangement projects, etc." and Article 8(1)2 of the Act provides that the consent of more than 1/2 of the owners of land, etc. shall be required
It refers to the determination and change of the method of raising funds under the provisions of Article 32.
In full view of the relevant provisions of the above operating regulations, it is interpreted that consent of more than 1/2 of the owners of lands, etc. who agreed to the composition of the promotion committee is necessary when the promotion committee determines or amends one of the methods under Article 32 (1) or (2) of the operating regulations, and further, it is difficult to view that consent of the owners of lands, etc. should be obtained whenever individual loans are borrowed from the specialized management contractor, etc. of rearrangement project.
Even if the act of borrowing without undergoing the procedure prescribed by the above operating regulations is not reasonable and void as a matter of course.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion does not seem to have any mother or reason.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition.