[Ruling]
The Supreme Court has ruled that if a party has taken certain prior actions, such as attempting to maintain a union membership contract, it is against the principle of good faith to claim that the contract is invalid and demand a refund of contributions on the grounds that a refund guarantee agreement is void. The Supreme Court's Civil Division 2 (Presiding Justice Oh Kyungmi) on May 15 upheld the lower court's ruling against the plaintiffs, who had demanded the return of contributions paid under a union membership contract (2024Da239692).
[Facts]
The plaintiffs entered into a union membership contract with the defendant, a regional housing cooperative, and simultaneously signed a refund guarantee agreement stating, "If the application for approval of the union's establishment is not made and the project fails, all contract payments and service fees will be refunded." Subsequently, the defendant received approval for the union's establishment and project plan, and the plaintiffs paid their contributions before and after the approval. However, the plaintiffs argued that the refund guarantee agreement was void, claimed that the union membership contract itself was invalid or subject to cancellation, and demanded the return of the contributions as unjust enrichment.
[Issue]
Whether it is against the principle of good faith for a member of a regional housing cooperative to claim the invalidity or cancellation of the union membership contract and demand the return of contributions, based on the invalidity of the refund guarantee agreement.
[Lower Courts]
The court of first instance ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. However, the appellate court ruled against the plaintiffs, stating, "It is against the principle of good faith for the plaintiffs, who previously demonstrated an intention to maintain the union membership contract, to later claim that the contract is invalid."
[Supreme Court Decision]
The Supreme Court reached the same conclusion and dismissed the appeal. The Court explained, "If a regional housing cooperative enters into a refund guarantee agreement without a resolution of the general meeting, the refund guarantee agreement may be void as an act of disposing of common property without such a resolution, and this may constitute grounds for invalidity or cancellation of the simultaneously concluded union membership contract."
However, the Supreme Court stated, "Even if the refund guarantee agreement is void and a refund cannot be guaranteed, there may be cases where the purpose of the union membership contract?acquisition of ownership of a newly built apartment?is not affected. In such cases, if the union member has taken prior actions that can be interpreted as an intention to maintain the union membership contract regardless of whether a refund under the refund guarantee agreement is possible, it may be considered contradictory and against the principle of good faith for the member to later claim invalidity or cancellation of the contract and demand the return of contributions from the regional housing cooperative on the grounds of the invalidity of the refund guarantee agreement."
The Court further stated, "Even after it became clear that the conditions for a refund under the refund guarantee agreement would not be met, the plaintiffs paid a significant amount of contributions without concern, in order to acquire ownership of a new apartment. It appears that the plaintiffs intended to maintain the union membership contract regardless of whether a refund under the refund guarantee agreement was possible, and the housing construction project was carried out based on this trust. Therefore, it is necessary to protect the defendant's reliance on this trust."
Reporter: Ahn Jaemyung, The Law Times
※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
