In a case where a representative institution of the redevelopment cooperative under the Urban Redevelopment Act committed a tort such as having the cooperative bear excessive debts in performing its duties, thereby causing damage to the redevelopment cooperative and resulting in infringement of the cooperative's economic interests, whether a cooperative member may claim damages against the cooperative pursuant to Article 35 of the Civil Act (negative)

In a case where a member of the redevelopment association established under the Urban Redevelopment Act directly damages due to a representative agency’s unlawful act such as director or director of the association, etc., he may claim damages against the redevelopment association pursuant to Article 21 of the Urban Redevelopment Act and Article 35 of the Civil Act. However, in a case where the redevelopment association suffered damages due to an unlawful act committed by the representative agency of the redevelopment association, which caused the redevelopment association to incur excessive damages to the partnership, and such indirect damages as damages infringing upon the economic interests of its members are not included in the concept of damages under Article 35 of the Civil Act

Article 35 of the Civil Act, Article 21 of the Urban Redevelopment Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

Si Heung 2-1 Housing Improvement Development Cooperatives (Attorney Ha-dae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na31860 delivered on February 23, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined ex officio prior to the determination.

In a case where a member of the redevelopment cooperative established under the Urban Redevelopment Act directly damages due to a representative agency’s unlawful act such as director or director of the cooperative, etc., he/she may claim damages against the redevelopment cooperative pursuant to Article 21 of the Urban Redevelopment Act and Article 35 of the Civil Act. However, the representative agency of the redevelopment cooperative, which caused the redevelopment cooperative’s damages by causing excessive debts to the cooperative due to an unlawful act in the course of performing its duties, is not included in the concept of damages under Article 35 of the Civil Act, and such indirect damages as damages infringing upon the economic interests of the cooperative members are not included in the concept of damages under Article 35 of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da36093, Jan.

According to this case, the defendant is a corporation established under the Urban Redevelopment Act (Articles 13 and 21 of the above Act), and the plaintiff's claim of this case was made by the head of the association, who is the representative body of the defendant, to increase the construction cost of the building facilities of this case by intentionally exceeding the scope of the standard construction cost without any objective inflation rate, and intentionally exceeding the scope of the construction cost, thereby causing losses to the plaintiff who is the member of the association, more than when the construction cost of this case was determined based on the objective inflation rate. The defendant's payment to the plaintiff was 105,61,126 won, excluding the principal amount of 75,140 won, and the total amount of 30,548,986 won, 100 won, 200 won, 30,000 won, 40,000 won, which is the defendant's 9,000 won, and 30,000 won, 30,000 won, 15.

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the damages of this case asserted by the plaintiff are indirect damages, so it does not constitute damages for which the defendant can claim damages under Article 21 of the Urban Redevelopment Act and Article 35 of the Civil Act. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case in itself is without merit.

The court below erred by misapprehending this point, but dismissed the plaintiff's claim as a result, and therefore it is not necessary to further determine the plaintiff's ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)