Whether the measures to be taken by the court where the representative of the reconstruction housing association which is a party to a lawsuit falls short of the power of representation and whether the correction is possible in the appellate trial (affirmative)

Article 59 (former part) and Article 60 of the Civil Procedure Act, applicable mutatis mutandis to a representative of a juristic person under the provisions of Article 64 of the same Act, in case where there exist any defects in the granting of litigation capacity, authority of legal representation, or authorization required for procedural acts, a court shall order to correct them within a specified period, and where the revised party or legal representative confirms them after conducting procedural acts, such procedural acts shall take effect retrospectively at the time when they were conducted. In case where the representative of the Reconstruction Housing Association, which is a party to a lawsuit, is absent under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act, the court shall order to correct them within a specified period, unless it is evident that such defects cannot be corrected. The amendment of such power of representation can also be made at an appellate court.

Articles 59, 60, and 64 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Da19 Decided October 30, 1979 (Gong1990, 1253) Supreme Court Decision 96Da3852 Decided October 11, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3310) Decided May 11, 1990

It shall be decided that the housing association for the re-building of Rose of Sharon (Attorney Kim Jung-il, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na25445 delivered on December 11, 2002

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The judgment of the court below

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 그 채용 증거를 종합하여, 원고 조합은 주택건설촉진법 제44조 에 따라 서울 중랑구 면목동 56-1, 56-10 2필지 합계 2,155.5㎡를 사업시행구역으로 하여 2000. 5. 25. 서울 중랑구청장으로부터 설립인가를 받은 재건축주택조합이고, 피고는 위 사업시행구역 안에 있는 위 면목동 56-1 대 1,029.3㎡ 중 311.36분의 11.08 지분 및 위 지상 동아연립주택 나동 건물 중 미등기건물인 별지 목록 제2항 기재 부동산 중 원심 판시 별지 도면 표시 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 13, 2의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선 내 ㉮, ㉯, ㉰, ㉱, ㉲, ㉳, ㉴ 부분 지층 2호 합계 62.3㎡의 소유자인 사실, 위 재건축사업시행구역 안에는 건축된 지 20년 이상 경과한 동아연립주택 2개동과 무궁화연립주택 2개동 합계 4개동의 건물에 총 39세대가 거주하고 있었는데 위 건물들이 노후화되고 그 중 일부가 훼손되기도 하여 그 수선·복구에 과다한 비용이 소요될 것으로 판단되자 2000. 2.경부터 재건축사업이 추진되어 위 사업시행구역 내 주민들 중 일부인 30명을 조합원으로 하여 앞서 본 바와 같이 2000. 5. 25. 원고 조합이 설립·인가되었고, 2001. 3.경까지는 위 사업시행구역 내 건물 대부분의 철거가 완료되는 등 현재까지 위 재건축사업이 진행되고 있는 사실 등을 인정한 다음, 소외 1이 2000. 2. 13.자 조합원 총회에서 조합장으로 적법하게 선출되었다는 원고 조합의 주장에 대하여, 이에 부합하는 갑 제1호증의 1, 갑 제23호증의 각 기재는 이를 믿을 수 없고, 오히려 거시와 같은 증거들을 종합하여, 원고 조합은 2000. 2. 13. 조합원 총회에서 소외 2를 조합장으로 선출하여 그를 대표자로 하여 서울 중랑구청장으로부터 조합설립인가를 받으려 하였으나 위 소외 2는 위 재건축사업토지 내의 구분소유자가 아니고 주민등록도 타지에 있어 조합원으로서의 자격이 없기 때문에 조합장이 될 수 없다고 하자 위 재건축사업토지 내의 구분소유자로서 조합원자격이 있는 그의 처인 소외 1을 아무런 총회 결의도 거침이 없이 단지 명의만 조합장으로 하여 서울 중랑구청장으로부터 조합설립인가를 받고 실질적으로는 위 소외 2가 그로부터 조합업무를 위임받은 것으로 하여 조합업무를 처리한 사실이 인정될 뿐, 임원은 조합원 총회에서 선임하도록 되어 있는 원고 조합의 규약에 따라 위 2000. 2. 13. 조합원 총회 외에 달리 소외 1을 조합장으로 선임하였다는 점을 인정할 아무런 자료가 없다는 이유로, 소외 1이 원고 조합의 조합원 총회에서 조합장으로 선출된 적이 없어 원고 조합을 대표할 권한이 없으므로, 이 사건 소는 대표권 없는 자에 의하여 제기된 소로서 부적법하다고 판단하였다.

2. The judgment of this Court

However, we cannot agree with the above judgment of the court below.

As determined by the court below, even if it is found that at the general meeting of the Plaintiff Union on February 13, 200, most residents in the above reconstruction project zone except the Defendant did not appoint Nonparty 1 as the president of the association, and most residents in the above reconstruction project zone recognized Nonparty 1 as the president of the association and the non-party 2 as acting as the president of the association, and accordingly, in this case where it is clearly acknowledged in the record that the court below did not dismiss the court below, and the statement in the evidence No. 14 and No. 22, the Plaintiff association submitted a false statement of appointment of the president of the association who appointed the non-party 1 as the president of the association on April 5, 200 at the general meeting held on the 15th of the same month, the court below did not recognize that the non-party 1 did not have the right to represent the association members by attending the meeting held by the president of the association on the 37 households of all the union members and passed a resolution on the selection of the number of members by reconstruction.

In addition, Articles 59 (former part) and 60 of the Civil Procedure Act, applicable mutatis mutandis to a representative of a juristic person under the provisions of Article 64 of the same Act, if there is any defect in the granting of litigation capacity, authority of legal representation, or authority required for procedural acts, the court shall order to correct it within a specified period, and if the defective person has conducted procedural acts, then the revised party or legal representative confirms it, such procedural acts shall take effect retrospectively from the time when they were conducted. The court shall have a duty to issue an order for correction within a specified period, unless it is obvious that the defect cannot be corrected if the defect is not corrected in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 78Da19, Oct. 30, 1979). Thus, the amendment of such power of representation is possible at an appellate court (see Supreme Court Decisions 89Da15199, May 11, 190; 200Da285, Oct. 11, 1996).

Nevertheless, the court below's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case immediately without taking such measures is erroneous in failing to perform its duty of explanation in violation of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act concerning correction order in the event of defects in the power of representation, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)