logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.07.24 2018누75155
관리처분계획 및 인가 취소청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the admitting the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as set forth in the following 2.2. Thus, this shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff’s additional determination is that at least 20/10 of its members shall be present at a general meeting where the formulation of a management and disposal plan is decided under the Urban Improvement Act. The minutes of the instant general meeting shall be submitted a written resolution and 323 of its members present at the general meeting without submitting a written resolution and 98 and 421 of its members present at the general meeting. However, there is no evidence supporting that at least 20/10 of all its members present at the general meeting, and at least 305 of its members present at the general meeting of the instant case, are procedural defects.

The former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”) shall apply to special meetings on December 28, 2016.

The proviso of Article 24(6) provides that “where a general meeting makes a resolution, at least 10/100 of its members (referring to 20/100 of its members in cases of a general meeting prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as a general meeting for the establishment of a new company, a project implementation plan, and a general meeting for the formulation and amendment of a management and disposal plan)

The plaintiff asserted the above facts from the general meeting of the union of this case 2 years and 6 months after the date of the lawsuit of this case, and 2 years after the date of the lawsuit of this case. The plaintiff did not dispute the plaintiff and did not dispute the issue of the lawsuit of this case.

arrow