[1] External requisition necessary for seeking confirmation of the legal nature and validity of the resolution of the general assembly of a reconstruction association

[2] The case holding that where the Speaker has declared the closure of a special general meeting with withholding the declaration of the establishment of the resolution in the procedure of resolution on the dissolution of the association of the reconstruction association, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of the resolution on the special general meeting under the premise that the resolution exists is unlawful as there is no benefit

[1] A resolution of the general meeting of a reconstruction association is a juristic act which determines the intention of the general meeting, which is a decision-making body, and a resolution which binding the parties concerned upon the declaration of the establishment of the resolution according to the prescribed procedure exists externally, and only if there are external signs of proof which can recognize the existence of the resolution, it can be claimed to confirm the validity of the resolution.

[2] The case holding that in case where the Speaker has declared the closure of a special meeting without reserving the declaration of the establishment of the resolution on the ground of defects in the written resolution at the resolution procedure for the special meeting resolution procedure for the dissolution of the association of the reconstruction association, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of the resolution on the special meeting on the premise that there is no external proof to acknowledge the existence of the resolution, is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation

[1] Articles 31 and 68 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 31 and 68 of the Civil Act, Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Dong-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Hong Dong-dong Housing Association (Attorney Kim Si-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na86322 decided August 21, 2007

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

A resolution of a general meeting of a reconstruction association is a juristic act which determines the intention of a general meeting, which is a decision-making body, and a resolution which has binding force on the person concerned as a result of a declaration of the formation of the resolution according to the prescribed procedure exists externally, and only if there are any external signs that can recognize the existence of the resolution, it can be claimed to confirm the validity of the resolution.

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, when 33 members agreed to vote in the secret vote and the ballot counting of the written resolution on the dissolution of the defendant association at the special general meeting of this case were aggregated with 34 members, the plaintiff, the chairperson of this case, declared a closed match without declaration as to whether or not to pass the above dissolution until the decision on whether or not to nullify or nullify it was made due to the defect in the written resolution by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who expressed the opposing opinion among the investment in the written resolution of this case. According to the above facts found, since it is obvious that the resolution of the special general meeting of this case was closed without declaration on the establishment of the resolution in the resolution procedure, it is evident that the resolution of this case was closed without any external letter to recognize the existence of the resolution. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit to confirm the existence of the resolution of the special general meeting of this case on the premise that the resolution of the general meeting of this case exists is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation (the purport of the plaintiff's claim of this case itself is unlawful by itself).

Although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is somewhat inappropriate, the conclusion that accepted the defendant's main defense and dismissed the lawsuit of this case is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a serious violation of Acts and subordinate statutes or the resolution of the general

Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal on the additional determination by the lower court is justifiable, so long as the lower court’s main determination was justifiable, it cannot affect the conclusion of the judgment, even if there were errors as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the lower court’s additional determination, and this part of the ground of appeal is without merit,

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.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)