Open Decision Ledger · Customary law & property rights
Void refund guarantee and ratification by general meeting resolution alone
Supreme Court, Nov. 6, 2025, 2024Da272835 (judgment)
Case name: 부당이득금반환등
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a regional housing cooperative or its promotion committee concluded a refund guarantee promise together with a membership contract without a general meeting resolution, was that promise void as a disposition of commonly owned property, must it be ratified by the cooperative alone rather than also by the counterparty, and could the Supreme Court review the point in a small claims case with no earlier precedent?
Holding
The Supreme Court could review the interpretation even though the case was a small claims case, because no precedent had yet addressed the point, many such cases were pending in the lower courts, and their rulings diverged, so ending the case without deciding would harm legal stability in daily life. On the merits, a refund guarantee promise concluded without a general meeting resolution is void as a disposition of commonly owned property and may make the membership contract concluded with it void. Ratifying a void act is a unilateral act of adopting its effect, so a general meeting resolution is enough, and the counterparty's own act of confirmation is not needed unless there were special circumstances, such as the counterparty having withdrawn the refund guarantee promise in advance.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
한편 무효행위의 추인은 무효행위가 있음을 알고 그 행위의 효과를 자기에게 귀속시키도록 하는 단독행위이므로, 총유물 처분행위로서의 환불보장약정이 총회 결의 흠결로 무효인 경우 이에 대한 추인 역시 상대방이 사전에 환불보장약정을 철회하는 의사를 표시하였다는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한 총회 결의의 방법으로 이루어지면 충분하고, 여기에 상대방이 추인하는 등의 의사표시까지 필요한 것은 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
Meanwhile, since ratification of a void act is a unilateral act whereby a person, knowing that the void act has occurred, attributes the effect of that act to himself or herself, where the refund guarantee agreement as an act of disposition of property under collective ownership is invalid due to a defect in the resolution of the general meeting, ratification thereof is sufficiently accomplished by means of a resolution of the general meeting, absent special circumstances such as the counterparty having previously expressed an intention to withdraw the refund guarantee agreement, and an expression of intent such as ratification by the counterparty is not required in addition thereto.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 의정부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
소액사건에 관하여 상고이유로 할 수 있는 ‘대법원의 판례에 상반되는 판단을 한 때’의 요건을 갖추지 아니하였다고 하더라도 법령해석의 통일이라는 대법원의 본질적 기능을 수행하는 차원에서 실체법 해석·적용의 잘못에 관하여 판단할 수 있다
Unofficial English translation
Even where the requirements for a ground for final appeal in a small-claim case of 'having made a determination contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents' are not met, the Supreme Court may make a determination on an error in the interpretation and application of substantive law from the standpoint of performing its essential function of maintaining uniformity in the interpretation of statutes and regulations
Factors
- 조합가입계약과 함께 ‘사업을 중단하거나 사업에 실패할 경우에는 조합원이 납입한 분담금을 반환하겠다.’는 취지의 환불보장약정을 체결하면서 총회의 결의를 거치지 않았다면
- 그러한 환불보장약정은 총회 결의 없는 총유물의 처분행위에 해당하여 무효이고
- 무효행위의 추인은 무효행위가 있음을 알고 그 행위의 효과를 자기에게 귀속시키도록 하는 단독행위이므로
- 상대방이 사전에 환불보장약정을 철회하는 의사를 표시하였다는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한
- 같은 법령의 해석이 쟁점으로 되어 있는 다수의 소액사건들이 하급심에 계속되어 있을 뿐 아니라 재판부에 따라 엇갈리는 판단을 하는 사례가 나타나고 있는 경우
Unofficial English translation
• if, in entering into a refund guarantee agreement to the effect that 'if the project is suspended or the project fails, the share payments contributed by the members will be returned,' concurrently with a cooperative membership agreement, a resolution of the general meeting was not obtained,
• such refund guarantee agreement constitutes an act of disposition of property under collective ownership made without a resolution of the general meeting and is invalid, and
• since ratification of a void act is a unilateral act whereby a person, knowing that the void act has occurred, attributes the effect of that act to himself or herself,
• absent special circumstances such as the counterparty having previously expressed an intention to withdraw the refund guarantee agreement,
• where not only are a large number of small-claim cases in which the interpretation of the same statute or regulation is at issue pending in the lower courts, but instances of divergent determinations depending on the bench are also appearing,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2009. 9. 24. 선고 2009다37831 판결(공2009하, 1747)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831 decided September 24, 2009 (Gong 2009 Ha, 1747)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2004. 8. 20. 선고 2003다1878 판결(공2004하, 1571), 대법원 2025. 7. 18. 선고 2022다257238 판결(공2025하, 1482) / [2] 대법원 2009. 9. 24. 선고 2009다37831 판결(공2009하, 1747), 대법원 2025. 5. 15. 선고 2024다239692 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What other special circumstances besides an advance withdrawal by the counterparty would stop a general meeting resolution from being enough to ratify a void refund guarantee promise?
The remand judgment of the Uijeongbu District Court on the effect of the general meeting resolution of 15 January 2023 will show how the rule is applied to these facts. A decision expressly setting the boundary of review under Article 3(ii) of the Small Claims Case Act, or an amendment to Article 275 and Article 276(1) of the Civil Act, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
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 Uijeongbu District Court, in its judgment of 4 July 2024 (2024Na202646), held that the refund guarantee promise could be lawfully ratified only with the confirmation of the plaintiff as the defendant's contractual counterparty, and that without the plaintiff's confirmation the extraordinary general meeting resolution of 15 January 2023, by which the cooperative approved and ratified the double-payment certificate, was not enough to ratify the promise lawfully.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the refund promise was void for want of a general meeting resolution and that the cooperative could ratify it alone through such a resolution. It found that the court below had misread the law on ratifying a commonly owned disposition made void by the absence of a general meeting resolution and had failed to hold the necessary hearing, an error affecting the judgment, and it reversed and remanded the case on the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A refund guarantee promise for which a general meeting resolution was obtained at the time of conclusion, so that it is not a disposition of commonly owned property made without resolution.
- A case in which the counterparty withdrew the refund guarantee promise in advance, which the Court names as a special circumstance barring ratification by general meeting resolution alone.
- A small claims case in which Supreme Court precedent already exists on the interpretation of the statute in issue, so that the ground for reviewing the interpretation beyond the statutory reasons is absent.
Record verification notes
Look first at the membership contract and the certificate for any general meeting resolution taken when the refund promise was made, since the decision turns on that absence. Then check the minutes of any extraordinary general meeting, here the one of 15 January 2023, for the wording of the ratification resolution, and the record for anything showing that the member withdrew the promise before it. Keep the small claims ground apart: it applies where no Supreme Court precedent covers the point and divergent lower court rulings exist.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 소액사건에 관하여 상고이유로 할 수 있는 ‘대법원의 판례에 상반되는 판단을 한 때’의 요건을 갖추지 아니하였더라도 대법원이 실체법 해석·적용의 잘못에 관하여 판단할 수 있는 경우 [2] 비법인사단인 지역주택조합이나 추진위원회가 조합가입계약과 함께 ‘사업을 중단하거나 사업에 실패할 경우에는 조합원이 납입한 분담금을 반환하겠다.’는 취지의 환불보장약정을 체결하면서 총회의 결의를 거치지 않은 경우, 그 약정의 효력(무효) 및 이러한 사정이 함께 체결한 조합가입계약의 무효 원인이 되는지 여부(적극) / 총유물 처분행위로서의 환불보장약정이 총회 결의 흠결로 무효인 경우, 이에 대한 추인의 방법(=총회 결의) 및 여기에 상대방의 추인 등 의사표시도 필요한지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Where, in a small-claim case, the requirements for a ground for final appeal of 'having made a determination contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents' are not met, a case in which the Supreme Court may nevertheless make a determination on an error in the interpretation and application of substantive law [2] Where an unincorporated association such as a local housing cooperative or a promotion committee, in entering into a cooperative membership agreement, concurrently enters into a refund guarantee agreement to the effect that 'if the project is suspended or the project fails, the share payments contributed by the members will be returned,' without obtaining a resolution of the general meeting, the effect of such agreement (invalidity) and whether such circumstances constitute a ground for the invalidity of the cooperative membership agreement entered into together therewith (affirmative) / Where the refund guarantee agreement as an act of disposition of property under collective ownership is invalid due to a defect in the resolution of the general meeting, the method of ratification thereof (= a resolution of the general meeting), and whether an expression of intent such as ratification by the counterparty is also required therefor (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 소액사건에서 구체적 사건에 적용할 법령의 해석에 관한 대법원 판례가 아직 없는 상황에서 같은 법령의 해석이 쟁점으로 되어 있는 다수의 소액사건들이 하급심에 계속되어 있을 뿐 아니라 재판부에 따라 엇갈리는 판단을 하는 사례가 나타나고 있는 경우, 소액사건이라는 이유로 대법원이 그 법령의 해석에 관하여 판단을 하지 아니한 채 사건을 종결한다면 국민생활의 법적 안정성을 해칠 것이 우려된다. 이와 같은 특별한 사정이 있는 경우에는 소액사건에 관하여 상고이유로 할 수 있는 ‘대법원의 판례에 상반되는 판단을 한 때’의 요건을 갖추지 아니하였다고 하더라도 법령해석의 통일이라는 대법원의 본질적 기능을 수행하는 차원에서 실체법 해석·적용의 잘못에 관하여 판단할 수 있다. [2] 비법인사단인 지역주택조합이나 추진위원회가 조합가입계약과 함께 ‘사업을 중단하거나 사업에 실패할 경우에는 조합원이 납입한 분담금을 반환하겠다.’는 취지의 환불보장약정을 체결하면서 총회의 결의를 거치지 않았다면, 그러한 환불보장약정은 총회 결의 없는 총유물의 처분행위에 해당하여 무효이고, 이는 함께 체결한 조합가입계약의 무효 원인이 될 수 있다. 한편 무효행위의 추인은 무효행위가 있음을 알고 그 행위의 효과를 자기에게 귀속시키도록 하는 단독행위이므로, 총유물 처분행위로서의 환불보장약정이 총회 결의 흠결로 무효인 경우 이에 대한 추인 역시 상대방이 사전에 환불보장약정을 철회하는 의사를 표시하였다는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한 총회 결의의 방법으로 이루어지면 충분하고, 여기에 상대방이 추인하는 등의 의사표시까지 필요한 것은 아니다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 의정부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 소액사건심판법 제3조 제2호 / [2] 민법 제105조, 제137조, 제139조, 제275조, 제276조 제1항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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