Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Good faith bars a co-operative member's later refund claim
Supreme Court, Sept. 25, 2025, 2025Da209886 (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 concluded a refund guarantee agreement together with membership contracts without a general meeting resolution, is that agreement void, does the voidness make the membership contracts void or voidable, and may the members later assert that invalidity to recover their contributions after the procedure the agreement made a condition of refund has been carried out and the housing project is proceeding normally?
Holding
Yes to the first two, but the later assertion is barred here. The refund guarantee agreement, made without a general meeting resolution, is a disposition of commonly owned property and may be void, and that voidness may be a ground for voiding or rescinding the membership contracts concluded with it. But where the procedure the agreement made a negative condition of refund has in the end been performed, the purpose of the agreement has been achieved and the housing project is proceeding normally without risk of failure, a member who kept paying contributions and then claims invalidity to recover them is acting against good faith, so the claim may not be allowed.
Points at issue, verbatim
조합원이 환불보장약정의 무효나 그에 따른 조합가입계약의 무효 또는 취소를 주장하지 않는 동안 환불보장약정에서 환불의 소극적 조건으로 삼은 절차가 이행되어 환불보장약정의 목적이 달성되고 더 나아가 주택건설사업이 무산될 우려 없이 절차에 따라 정상적으로 진행되는 경우, 그 후 조합원이 환불보장약정의 무효와 그에 따른 조합가입계약의 무효 또는 취소를 주장하는 것은 신의성실의 원칙에 어긋나거나 권리의 남용이 되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Where, while a member does not assert the invalidity of the refund guarantee agreement or the invalidity or rescission of the cooperative admission agreement resulting therefrom, the procedures stipulated in the refund guarantee agreement as negative conditions for refund are carried out, the purpose of the refund guarantee agreement is achieved, and furthermore the housing construction project proceeds normally in accordance with the procedures without any risk of the project falling through, whether the member's subsequent assertion of the invalidity of the refund guarantee agreement and of the invalidity or rescission of the cooperative admission agreement resulting therefrom is contrary to the principle of good faith or constitutes an abuse of right (affirmative)
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
조합원이 환불보장약정의 무효나 그에 따른 조합가입계약의 무효 또는 취소를 주장하지 않는 동안 환불보장약정에서 환불의 소극적 조건으로 삼은 절차가 이행되어 환불보장약정의 목적이 달성되고 더 나아가 주택건설사업이 무산될 우려 없이 절차에 따라 정상적으로 진행되는 경우
Unofficial English translation
Where, while a member does not assert the invalidity of the refund guarantee agreement or the invalidity or rescission of the cooperative admission agreement resulting therefrom, the procedures stipulated in the refund guarantee agreement as negative conditions for refund are carried out, the purpose of the refund guarantee agreement is achieved, and furthermore the housing construction project proceeds normally in accordance with the procedures without any risk of the project falling through
Factors
- 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
- 환불보장약정에서 환불의 소극적 조건으로 삼은 절차가 이행되어 환불보장약정의 목적이 달성되고 더 나아가 주택건설사업이 무산될 우려 없이 절차에 따라 정상적으로 진행되는 경우
- 조합원이 ‘환불보장약정에 따른 환불이 가능한지 여부와는 관계없이 조합가입계약을 유지하겠다.’는 의미로 해석될 만한 선행행위를 한 경우
Unofficial English translation
• Where a regional housing cooperative, an unincorporated association, enters into a refund guarantee agreement together with a cooperative admission agreement, providing that “if the cooperative fails to carry out certain procedures of the project or the project is consequently suspended or fails, the share contributions paid by a member will be returned,” without obtaining a resolution of the general meeting
• Where the procedures stipulated in the refund guarantee agreement as negative conditions for refund are carried out, the purpose of the refund guarantee agreement is achieved, and furthermore the housing construction project proceeds normally in accordance with the procedures without any risk of the project falling through
• Where a member has engaged in prior conduct that may be construed as meaning “the cooperative admission agreement will be maintained regardless of whether a refund under the refund guarantee agreement is possible”
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
How long must a member wait after the refund condition becomes fixed before demanding a refund, so that the earlier intent to leave the contract early is not treated as implicitly withdrawn?
The remand judgment of the Busan High Court on the good faith defence will show how the factors are weighed in practice. Any change to Article 11-3 of the Housing Act or its Enforcement Decree on recruiting new members after project approval, or a later decision differing from 2024Da239692, 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 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How long must a member wait after the refund condition becomes fixed before demanding a refund, so that the earlier intent to leave the contract early is not treated as implicitly withdrawn?” vs Independent “Would the same bar apply if a substantial risk of project failure remained when the member sought repayment?”
The primary asks about delay and implied withdrawal of an intent to exit, whereas the independent asks whether a remaining risk of project failure changes the good-faith bar.
조합원이 환불보장약정의 무효나 그에 따른 조합가입계약의 무효 또는 취소를 주장하지 않는 동안 환불보장약정에서 환불의 소극적 조건으로 삼은 절차가 이행되어 환불보장약정의 목적이 달성되고 더 나아가 주택건설사업이 무산될 우려 없이 절차에 따라 정상적으로 진행되는 경우, 그 후 조합원이 환불보장약정의 무효와 그에 따른 조합가입계약의 무효 또는 취소를 주장하는 것은 신의성실의 원칙에 어긋나거나 권리의 남용이 되는지 여부(적극)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 High Court, in its judgment of 16 January 2025 (2024Na53355), held that the refund guarantee agreement was a disposition of commonly owned property without a general meeting resolution and therefore void, and that under Article 137 of the Civil Act the whole of each membership contract was void, so the defendant had to return the contributions. It granted the plaintiffs' primary claim in unjust enrichment and rejected the defendant's argument based on breach of good faith.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misunderstood the law on good faith. It reasoned that after the refund condition had become fixed by the defendant's failure to file for project approval by June 2020, the plaintiffs neither demanded a refund nor challenged the membership contracts, and instead kept paying contributions: plaintiff 1 paid KRW 77 million on 30 October 2020, plaintiff 2 paid KRW 38 million on 12 November 2020, and plaintiff 3 paid KRW 12 million in all on 30 and 31 December 2020 and KRW 10 million on 20 November 2021, so the defendant was entitled to rely on that conduct. The refund agreement's purpose was achieved once approval was obtained on 30 May 2023, the risk of the project failing had disappeared, and the defendant had lost the practical chance to recruit replacement members because a cooperative may recruit none after approval. It reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the Busan High Court, unanimously.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the procedure the refund guarantee agreement made a condition of refund has not been carried out and the housing project remains at risk of failure, so that the purpose of the agreement has not been achieved.
- A member who demanded a refund or challenged the membership contract within a reasonable time after the refund condition became fixed, so that no reliance on continued performance was built up.
- A case with no conduct by the member that may be read as an intention to keep the membership contract whatever the refund agreement's validity, since the Court relied on such a prior act as a contradictory conduct.
Record verification notes
Set out the date each contribution was paid against the date the refund condition became fixed, and the approval application and approval dates, since the Court weighed the period of continued payment. Check what the cooperative did in reliance on those payments, in particular whether it applied for and obtained project approval while no refund was demanded, and whether it could still recruit replacement members. The referred decision 2024Da239692 should be read alongside this one.
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 환불보장약정의 무효나 그에 따른 조합가입계약의 무효 또는 취소를 주장하지 않는 동안 환불보장약정에서 환불의 소극적 조건으로 삼은 절차가 이행되어 환불보장약정의 목적이 달성되고 더 나아가 주택건설사업이 무산될 우려 없이 절차에 따라 정상적으로 진행되는 경우, 그 후 조합원이 환불보장약정의 무효와 그에 따른 조합가입계약의 무효 또는 취소를 주장하는 것은 신의성실의 원칙에 어긋나거나 권리의 남용이 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, an unincorporated association, enters into a refund guarantee agreement together with a cooperative admission agreement, providing that “if the cooperative fails to carry out certain procedures of the project or the project is consequently suspended or fails, the share contributions paid by a member will be returned,” without obtaining a resolution of the general meeting, whether such agreement is void (invalidity) and whether such circumstance constitutes grounds for the invalidity or rescission of the cooperative admission agreement concluded together therewith (affirmative) / Where, while a member does not assert the invalidity of the refund guarantee agreement or the invalidity or rescission of the cooperative admission agreement resulting therefrom, the procedures stipulated in the refund guarantee agreement as negative conditions for refund are carried out, the purpose of the refund guarantee agreement is achieved, and furthermore the housing construction project proceeds normally in accordance with the procedures without any risk of the project falling through, whether the member's subsequent assertion of the invalidity of the refund guarantee agreement and of the invalidity or rescission of the cooperative admission agreement resulting therefrom is contrary to the principle of good faith or constitutes an abuse of right (affirmative) / Where a member has engaged in prior conduct that may be construed as meaning “the cooperative admission agreement will be maintained regardless of whether a refund under the refund guarantee agreement is possible,” whether a subsequent claim for the return of share contributions against the regional housing cooperative, by asserting the invalidity or rescission of the cooperative admission agreement on the ground of the invalidity of the refund guarantee agreement, constitutes inconsistent conduct 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 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan High 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