logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.06.29 2015나2054224
보관금반환 및 손해배상 청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is reasonable, and it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff that caused enormous damages to the Plaintiff by paying excessive attorney-at-law fees while serving as the Plaintiff’s president or general secretary.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s property embezzled KRW 82,660,000,00, total of the proceeds from the lease of the building located on the D’s ground, which is the Plaintiff’s property, and KRW 7,660,00,000, total of farmland cultivation expenses, and KRW 29,00,000,000.

(A) On the same ground, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with Defendant B for the crime of occupational embezzlement and occupational breach of trust on November 16, 2014, but was sentenced to a disposition of non-guilty on charges of violation of trust on the same ground. The Plaintiff asserts that even if the Plaintiff owned the leased revenue, farmland cultivation expenses, and deposit money in the agricultural bank passbook, etc. (hereinafter “second class”), the Plaintiff held a general meeting of representatives on August 8, 2015 and delegated the authority on the leased revenue, etc. to the Plaintiff in the form of lawsuit.

However, such delegation is null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da23412, Mar. 27, 2014). Even if otherwise, barring any special circumstance, the preservation of collective ownership requires a resolution of a general meeting of members pursuant to Article 276(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, a clan, an association which is not a juristic person, as an association, has to undergo a resolution of the general meeting of members in order to conduct procedural acts as an act of preserving collective property (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da83650, Feb. 11, 2010). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the evidence No. 11 or 5, presented by the Plaintiff, including the statement of evidence No. 11 or 5, delegated the Plaintiff the right to conduct procedural acts against rent proceeds, money in custody, etc., following the resolution of the general meeting of members.

or a resolution of the general meeting of representatives of a clan may substitute for a resolution of the general meeting of representatives.

arrow