Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Doubts about a representative's authority trigger the court's duty to investigate
Supreme Court, Apr. 28, 2022, 2021Da306904 (judgment)
Case name: 보관금반환등청구의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
In a case where an unincorporated association is a party, must the court hear and investigate whether its representative holds lawful authority when the materials already submitted give ground to doubt that authority, even if the other side does not raise the point specifically?
Holding
Yes. Whether the representative holds lawful authority goes to the requirements of litigation and is therefore the court's own investigation matter: the court need not itself search out the facts and evidence that form its basis, but where the materials already submitted give ground to doubt that authority, it must hear and investigate the point even if the other side does not raise it specifically. On this file the defendant held more than 51% of the building's total exclusive area, stated in the answer dated 21 May 2019 that the person who filed this suit for the management association had no authority to represent it, and the record held nothing showing lawful election, so the court below had to examine the point further and erred in leaving it undecided.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
법원으로서는 판단의 기초자료인 사실과 증거를 직권으로 탐지할 의무까지는 없다 하더라도, 이미 제출된 자료들에 의하여 대표권의 적법성에 의심이 갈 만한 사정이 엿보인다면 상대방이 이를 구체적으로 지적하여 다투지 않더라도 이에 관하여 심리·조사할 의무가 있다.
Unofficial English translation
Even though the court need not go so far as to ascertain ex officio the facts and evidence that serve as the basis for its determination, if there appear to be circumstances that cast doubt on the lawfulness of the representative authority based on the materials already submitted, the court has a duty to investigate and examine the matter even if the opposing party does not specifically point out and dispute it.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 부산지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이미 제출된 자료들에 의하여 대표권의 적법성에 의심이 갈 만한 사정이 엿보인다면 상대방이 이를 구체적으로 지적하여 다투지 않더라도 이에 관하여 심리·조사할 의무가 있다
Unofficial English translation
if there appear to be circumstances that cast doubt on the lawfulness of the representative authority based on the materials already submitted, the court has a duty to investigate and examine the matter even if the opposing party does not specifically point out and dispute it
Factors
- 비법인사단이 당사자인 사건에서 대표자에게 적법한 대표권이 있는지는 소송요건에 관한 것으로서 법원의 직권조사사항이므로
- 법원으로서는 판단의 기초자료인 사실과 증거를 직권으로 탐지할 의무까지는 없다 하더라도
- 그 대표자는 규약에 달리 특별한 규정을 두고 있지 않는 한 구분소유자의 과반수 및 의결권의 과반수로써 선임하고
- 을은 건물의 전체 전유부분 면적의 51% 이상을 가지고 있으며
- 병이 적법한 절차에 의하여 관리단의 대표자로 선임되었다는 점을 인정할 만한 자료를 찾아볼 수 없는데도
Unofficial English translation
• in a case where an unincorporated association is a party, whether its representative has lawful representative authority pertains to the requirements for suit and is a matter for the court to investigate ex officio, and therefore
• even though the court need not go so far as to ascertain ex officio the facts and evidence that serve as the basis for its determination,
• such representative is to be appointed by a majority of the unit owners and a majority of the voting rights, unless the by-laws provide otherwise by special rule,
• B holds 51% or more of the total area of the exclusive portions of the building, and
• no materials could be found to acknowledge that C had been appointed as the representative of the management association through lawful procedures, yet
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1997. 10. 10. 선고 96다40578 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 96Da40578 decided October 10, 1997
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1997. 10. 10. 선고 96다40578 판결(공1997하, 3405), 대법원 2011. 7. 28. 선고 2010다97044 판결(공2011하, 1771)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What in the materials already submitted is enough to make the lawfulness of the representative's authority doubtful when the bylaws set their own election procedure?
The judgment of the Busan District Court on remand, once it hears and investigates the election procedure, will show what material settles a representative's authority in practice. Any amendment to Article 38(1) or Article 37(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Buildings, or a later Supreme Court decision on the scope of the court's duty to investigate, calls for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Busan District Court, in its judgment of 26 November 2021 (2020Na49515), neither heard nor decided whether the person who filed this action on behalf of the plaintiff management association held lawful authority to represent it. The defendant, who held more than 51% of the building's total exclusive area, stated that point in the answer dated 21 May 2019 which it submitted at the first oral argument hearing of the first instance. The decision does not say how the court below resolved the claim for return of the money in custody itself.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the lawfulness of a representative's authority in a case where an unincorporated association is a party concerns the requirements of litigation and is an ex officio investigation matter, so the court below had to hear and investigate the point further. It found nothing in the record showing that the outsider had been elected the association's representative by lawful procedure, and held that the court below, by leaving the authority question unexamined, misapplied the law on the representative authority of an unincorporated association's representative and on ex officio investigation matters in a way that affected the judgment. It therefore reversed the whole judgment and remanded the case to the Busan District Court, by the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the materials already submitted show that the representative was elected by a majority of the unit-owners and a majority of the voting rights, so that no ground for doubt about the authority appears.
- A case in which the association's bylaws contain a special provision on the election of the representative or on the exercise of voting rights, since the majority and area-ratio rules applied here operate only where the bylaws say nothing.
- A case in which the filed materials raise no doubt about the representative's authority and the other side makes no specific objection, because the court need not itself seek out the facts and evidence for its decision.
Record verification notes
First collect what the file already contains on the election of the representative: the bylaws, the minutes of the meeting and the notice of election, because the duty to investigate is triggered by doubt appearing in what has been filed, not by an obligation to gather evidence. Then read the bylaws for a special rule on election and on voting rights, and work out the defendant's voting rights from the exclusive areas, so that the majority test in Article 38(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Buildings can be applied as the bylaws leave it. Keep this point separate from the merits of the money claim, since a judgment rendered without resolving the representative authority question is liable to be reversed.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 비법인사단이 당사자인 사건에서 이미 제출된 자료들에 의하여 대표권의 적법성에 의심이 갈 만한 사정이 있는 경우, 법원이 이에 관하여 심리·조사할 의무가 있는지 여부(적극) [2] 집합건물의 관리단인 갑 관리단이 을을 상대로 관리비 등의 지급을 구한 사안에서, 을이 갑 관리단의 대표자로서 소를 제기한 병에 대하여 관리단을 대표할 권한이 없다는 취지의 주장을 하였고, 병이 적법한 절차에 의하여 관리단의 대표자로 선임되었다는 점을 인정할 만한 자료를 찾아볼 수 없는데도, 병에게 적법한 대표권이 있는지에 관하여 심리·판단하지 아니한 원심판결에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] In a case where an unincorporated association is a party, whether the court has a duty to investigate and examine the matter when circumstances casting doubt on the lawfulness of the representative authority appear from the materials already submitted (affirmative) [2] In a case where management association A of a condominium building sought from B the payment of management fees and the like, B asserted that C, who had brought the action as the representative of management association A, had no authority to represent the management association, and no materials could be found to acknowledge that C had been appointed as the representative of the management association through lawful procedures, yet the judgment of the court below erred in misapprehension of legal principles by failing to examine and determine whether C had lawful representative authority
Summary of the holding
[1] 비법인사단이 당사자인 사건에서 대표자에게 적법한 대표권이 있는지는 소송요건에 관한 것으로서 법원의 직권조사사항이므로, 법원으로서는 판단의 기초자료인 사실과 증거를 직권으로 탐지할 의무까지는 없다 하더라도, 이미 제출된 자료들에 의하여 대표권의 적법성에 의심이 갈 만한 사정이 엿보인다면 상대방이 이를 구체적으로 지적하여 다투지 않더라도 이에 관하여 심리·조사할 의무가 있다. [2] 집합건물의 관리단인 갑 관리단이 을을 상대로 관리비 등의 지급을 구한 사안에서, 갑 관리단은 집합건물의 소유 및 관리에 관한 법률 제23조 제1항에 의하여 당연설립된 관리단이자 비법인사단으로서 그 대표자는 규약에 달리 특별한 규정을 두고 있지 않는 한 구분소유자의 과반수 및 의결권의 과반수로써 선임하고, 구분소유자의 의결권은 규약에 특별한 규정이 없으면 각 구분소유자가 가지는 전유부분의 면적 비율에 따르게 되어 있는데, 을은 건물의 전체 전유부분 면적의 51% 이상을 가지고 있으며, 갑 관리단의 대표자로서 소를 제기한 병에 대하여 관리단을 대표할 권한이 없다는 취지의 주장을 하였고, 병이 적법한 절차에 의하여 관리단의 대표자로 선임되었다는 점을 인정할 만한 자료를 찾아볼 수 없는데도, 병에게 적법한 대표권이 있는지에 관하여 심리·판단하지 아니한 원심판결에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 부산지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사소송법 제52조, 제58조, 제64조, 제134조[직권조사사항] [2] 민사소송법 제52조, 제58조, 제64조, 제134조[직권조사사항], 집합건물의 소유 및 관리에 관한 법률 제12조 제1항, 제23조 제1항, 제37조 제1항, 제38조 제1항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger