logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.08.30 2018고정420
도시및주거환경정비법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. No executive officer of a cooperative in charge of facts constituting an offense shall arbitrarily implement a contract that imposes a burden on its members, except as otherwise provided for in the budget without undergoing the resolution of a general meeting;

Nevertheless, around July 22, 2017, the Defendant entered into a general meeting service agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the effect that: (a) the Defendant shall pay KRW 55,420,000 to the D Housing Redevelopment Development Project Association (hereinafter “D Housing Redevelopment Project Association”)’s offices of the D Housing Redevelopment Project Association (hereinafter “instant association”) other than the matters set out in the budget, without going through a resolution of the general meeting comprised of its members; and (b) the payment of KRW 55,420,00 for vicarious services of the 2017 general meeting.

2. Article 24(3) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas”) does not stipulate at the time of a general meeting’s resolution. However, the aforementioned provision is intended to provide procedural guarantees for members to reflect their opinions, as it directly affects their rights and obligations, and for this purpose, it is interpreted as having a penal provision under Article 85 subparag. 5 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions. In light of the fact that it is difficult to reinstate if a contract was concluded and implemented without a prior resolution of a general meeting, it may cause confusion in legal relations, and this situation may interfere with the free decision-making of the members, “resolution by a general meeting” under Article 85 subparag. 5 of the Act refers to a prior resolution in principle (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14296, Jun. 24, 2010).

(1) [A prior resolution is difficult.]

arrow