Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Refund guarantees, prior conduct and good faith in regional housing cooperative membership
Supreme Court, Sept. 25, 2025, 2024Da320796 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 부당이득금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a regional housing cooperative concludes a refund guarantee agreement together with a membership agreement without a resolution of the general meeting, is the guarantee void, does that make the membership agreement void or voidable, and may the member still claim back the contributions after acting as if it would keep the agreement regardless of any refund?
Holding
On both questions, yes in principle, but the claim may be barred. A refund guarantee given by a regional housing cooperative without a resolution of the general meeting can be void as a disposal of common property, and that invalidity can in turn make the membership agreement void or voidable. Yet where the refund condition had already matured and the member went on paying contributions, sought no refund and then sued only shortly before the project approval, the Court held that claiming invalidity and demanding the contributions back was a contradiction contrary to the principle of good faith and could not be allowed.
Points at issue, verbatim
비법인사단인 지역주택조합이 조합가입계약과 함께 ‘사업의 일정 절차를 진행하지 못하거나 그로 인하여 사업이 중단 또는 실패할 경우에는 조합원이 납입한 분담금을 반환하겠다.’는 내용의 환불보장약정을 체결하면서 총회의 결의를 거치지 않은 경우, 그 약정의 효력(무효) 및 이러한 사정이 함께 체결한 조합가입계약의 무효 또는 취소 원인이 되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Where a regional housing cooperative, which is an association without juridical personality, enters into a refund guarantee agreement providing that "if certain procedures of the project cannot be carried out, or if the project is consequently suspended or fails, the contributions paid by the members will be returned," together with a membership agreement, without a resolution of the general meeting, whether that agreement is valid (invalid) and whether such circumstances constitute grounds for the invalidation or rescission of the membership agreement entered into together therewith (affirmative)
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
환불보장약정은 총회 결의 없는 총유물의 처분행위에 해당하여 무효가 될 수 있고, 이는 함께 체결한 조합가입계약의 무효 또는 취소 원인이 될 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
A refund guarantee agreement constitutes a disposition of co-owned property without a resolution of the general meeting and may be invalid, and this may be a ground for the invalidation or rescission of the membership agreement entered into together therewith.
Factors
- 조합가입계약과 함께 ‘사업의 일정 절차를 진행하지 못하거나 그로 인하여 사업이 중단 또는 실패할 경우에는 조합원이 납입한 분담금을 반환하겠다.’는 내용의 환불보장약정을 체결하면서 총회의 결의를 거치지 않은 경우
- 그 약정의 효력(무효) 및 이러한 사정이 함께 체결한 조합가입계약의 무효 또는 취소 원인이 되는지 여부(적극)
- 조합원이 ‘환불보장약정에 따른 환불이 가능한지 여부와는 관계없이 조합가입계약을 유지하겠다.’는 의미로 해석될 만한 선행행위를 한 경우
- 이후 환불보장약정의 무효를 이유로 조합가입계약의 무효 또는 취소를 주장하며 지역주택조합을 상대로 분담금 반환청구를 하는 것이 신의성실의 원칙에 반하는 모순행위에 해당하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
• Where a refund guarantee agreement providing that "if certain procedures of the project cannot be carried out, or if the project is consequently suspended or fails, the contributions paid by the members will be returned" is entered into together with a membership agreement, without a resolution of the general meeting
• Whether that agreement is valid (invalid) and whether such circumstances constitute grounds for the invalidation or rescission of the membership agreement entered into together therewith (affirmative)
• Where a member has engaged in prior conduct that may be construed as meaning that "the membership agreement will be maintained regardless of whether a refund under the refund guarantee agreement is available"
• Whether subsequently asserting the invalidation or rescission of the membership agreement on the ground of the invalidity of the refund guarantee agreement and claiming the return of contributions against the regional housing cooperative constitutes a contradictory act contrary to the principle of good faith (affirmative)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2025. 5. 15. 선고 2024다239692 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2024Da239692 decided May 15, 2025
Decisions referred to
대법원 2025. 5. 15. 선고 2024다239692 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the housing construction project later fails, so that the member can no longer acquire ownership of an apartment, does the bar of good faith still defeat a claim for the return of the contributions?
The retrial judgment of the Busan District Court, once it finds whether the plaintiff's payments support a reliance on the maintenance of the membership agreement on the remanded record, would show how the rule works. Any later decision changing the reading of Supreme Court Decision 2024Da239692 of 15 May 2025, or an amendment to Article 276(1) of the Civil Act or Article 11-3 of the Housing Act, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 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 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary reading treats the decision as setting out general requirements, while the independent reading treats it as applying the rule to the specific facts of this member's payments and the project's progress.
조합원이 ‘환불보장약정에 따른 환불이 가능한지 여부와는 관계없이 조합가입계약을 유지하겠다.’는 의미로 해석될 만한 선행행위를 한 경우Raw 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 14 November 2024 (2024Na43713), held that the refund guarantee was a disposal of common property made without a resolution of the general meeting and therefore void, and that under the main clause of Article 137 of the Civil Act the whole membership agreement was void, so the cooperative had to return the contributions. It rejected the cooperative's argument based on good faith and granted the plaintiff's claim for return of the contributions as unjust enrichment.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misapprehended the law on good faith. The refund condition had matured at the end of June 2018, yet the plaintiff did not demand a refund, paid a further KRW 76,325,000 between 10 July 2018 and 28 November 2022, and sued only on 13 December 2022, close to the project approval of 9 March 2023, leaving the cooperative no practical chance to recruit a replacement member. It reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the Busan District Court for retrial.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the general meeting resolved on the refund guarantee, so that it is not a disposal of common property without a resolution.
- A case in which the refund condition had not matured, or in which acquiring ownership of the new apartment remained unobstructed and the member did nothing that can be read as an intention to keep the membership agreement regardless of a refund.
- A case in which the project had already run aground, so that the member's payments no longer support a reliance on the maintenance of the agreement.
Record verification notes
Set out the whole payment history of the member against the date the refund condition matured, since the Court relied on the KRW 76,325,000 paid after that date out of the KRW 114,400,000 actually paid towards the total contribution of KRW 226,500,000. Then check what the cooperative did after the payments, in particular whether it obtained the project approval on 9 March 2023 and when the member filed suit, and read this entry alongside Supreme Court Decision 2024Da239692 of 15 May 2025, on which the Court's rule rests.
From the official text
Points at issue
비법인사단인 지역주택조합이 조합가입계약과 함께 ‘사업의 일정 절차를 진행하지 못하거나 그로 인하여 사업이 중단 또는 실패할 경우에는 조합원이 납입한 분담금을 반환하겠다.’는 내용의 환불보장약정을 체결하면서 총회의 결의를 거치지 않은 경우, 그 약정의 효력(무효) 및 이러한 사정이 함께 체결한 조합가입계약의 무효 또는 취소 원인이 되는지 여부(적극) / 조합원이 ‘환불보장약정에 따른 환불이 가능한지 여부와는 관계없이 조합가입계약을 유지하겠다.’는 의미로 해석될 만한 선행행위를 한 경우, 이후 환불보장약정의 무효를 이유로 조합가입계약의 무효 또는 취소를 주장하며 지역주택조합을 상대로 분담금 반환청구를 하는 것이 신의성실의 원칙에 반하는 모순행위에 해당하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Where a regional housing cooperative, which is an association without juridical personality, enters into a refund guarantee agreement providing that "if certain procedures of the project cannot be carried out, or if the project is consequently suspended or fails, the contributions paid by the members will be returned," together with a membership agreement, without a resolution of the general meeting, whether that agreement is valid (invalid) and whether such circumstances constitute grounds for the invalidation or rescission of the membership agreement entered into together therewith (affirmative) / Where a member has engaged in prior conduct that may be construed as meaning that "the membership agreement will be maintained regardless of whether a refund under the refund guarantee agreement is available," whether subsequently asserting the invalidation or rescission of the membership agreement on the ground of the invalidity of the refund guarantee agreement and claiming the return of contributions against the regional housing cooperative constitutes a contradictory act contrary to the principle of good faith (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
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
민법 제2조, 제105조, 제137조, 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