logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.06.27 2019구합313
조합설립추진위원회해산신고수리처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 21, 2017, the Plaintiff was established with the approval of the Defendant on September 21, 2017 for the purpose of authorization for the establishment of a housing reconstruction association that has a size of 18,667.4 square meters of a A apartment complex located in the Seoul Metropolitan City E-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City

B. On December 14, 2018, Defendant Intervenor B (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) received the instant report of dissolution to the Defendant, accompanied by a written consent of 166 owners of each household of A apartment (including a store).

C. Upon receipt of the instant report of dissolution, the Defendant: (a) examined whether the said consenters acquire ownership; and (b) recognized that the dissolution of 164 persons, half half of the total land owners, etc. consent to the dissolution of 287 owners; and (c) accepted the instant report of dissolution on January 14, 2019 following the hearing procedure.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 8, 10, 11, and 12 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), each statement, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The part of the Defendant and the Intervenor’s defense prior to the merits is to the effect that the Intervenor contests the Plaintiff’s standing as a party, F’s delegation of authority, or the Plaintiff’s substantive existence.

1) F is not the representative duly elected at the A Apartment Residents' General Meeting or the Plaintiff's Promotion Committee, and even if it is a new representative, the Plaintiff cannot legitimately represent the Plaintiff without the Defendant's approval. Thus, the instant lawsuit filed by F on behalf of the Plaintiff is unlawful as it was filed by a person without the authority to represent the Plaintiff (the first draft defense prior to the first draft). As such, the Plaintiff was already dissolved due to the instant disposition, and thus, the Plaintiff is not a party

(No. 2. Defenses before the merits)

1) Specific determination of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

Article 34(1) of the Act provides that the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall require the promotion committee (hereinafter “promotion committee”).

arrow