beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The Plaintiff asserts that, around May 2018, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 3,300,000,000 to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff submitted the “report on the agreed performance” upon the request of the Defendant on the verification of the feasibility of the sales bond and the disbursement of the project cost, etc. for the progress of the procedures for the financing of the project financing loan, which was received by the Defendant, while carrying out the “Cable block multi-family housing development project” by the Defendant.
According to Article 7(5)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Housing Act, and Article 27(1)3 of the Rules of the defendant's association (B) provide that "a contract that shall be borne by members, other than the matters prescribed in the budget, shall be determined through a resolution of the general meeting." Thus, insofar as the service cost of the plaintiff's assertion is not a matter prescribed in the budget, it shall undergo a resolution of the general meeting of the defendant's association members in order
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was the resolution, and it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff knew or was unaware of the fact that the resolution was not required by the general meeting of the union members, considering all the circumstances revealed in the proceedings of the pleading in this case, such as the purpose of the plaintiff corporation's business and the contents of the business performed by the plaintiff. Thus, the contract
In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that the conclusion of the service contract is adequate by the ratification of the general meeting pursuant to Article 27 (1) 4 of the defendant association, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the contract of the plaintiff's assertion was ratified by the general meeting, the validity of the contract is not entirely affected.
In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the conclusion of the instant contract was delegated to the board of directors pursuant to Article 27(4) of the Rules of the Defendant Union. However, according to the above provisions, the agreement was delegated to the board of directors or the president of the association, etc. with respect to specific matters subject to resolution by the general meeting.