Open Decision Ledger · Corporate law & governance
Party capacity of a welfare association inside an incorporated taxi union
Supreme Court, Jan. 8, 2026, 2025Da209990 (judgment)
Case name: 할당금환불금지급청구의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Is a welfare association that an incorporated individual taxi transport union set up for its members, and whose officers, decision-making and finances are drawn from the union, a separate independent unincorporated association with party capacity of its own, and must the court examine that capacity ex officio?
Holding
A body has the substance of an unincorporated association when it has its own purpose, associational rules, organs, majority rule, continuity despite changes in membership, and settled rules on representation, meetings, capital and property. Whether a sub-organ has party capacity is for the court to examine ex officio; a sub-organisation that itself has that substance and independent activity can be treated as a separate unincorporated association apart from the corporation. On this record the welfare association had no representative body, decision-making body or budget and assets apart from the taxi union, so it was not one, and the contrary judgment below misstated the law and failed to examine what the point required.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
사단법인의 하부조직의 하나라 하더라도 스스로 위와 같은 단체로서의 실체를 갖추고 독자적인 활동을 하고 있다면 사단법인과는 별개의 독립된 비법인사단으로 볼 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
Even where it is one of the subordinate organizations of an incorporated association, if it possesses the substance of an association as described above and carries on independent activities, it may be regarded as a separate and independent unincorporated association distinct from the incorporated association.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
어떤 단체가 고유의 목적을 가지고 사단적 성격을 가지는 규약을 만들어 이에 근거하여 의사결정기관 및 집행기관인 대표자를 두는 등의 조직을 갖추고 있고, 기관의 의결이나 업무집행방법이 다수결의 원칙에 의하여 행하여지며
Unofficial English translation
where an association has its own purpose, establishes articles having the character of an association, and, on the basis thereof, maintains an organization including a representative who serves as its decision-making organ and executive organ, and where the resolutions of its organs and the methods of executing its work are carried out in accordance with the principle of majority rule, and
Factors
- 갑 조합의 대표자가 을 복지회의 대표자로 업무를 총괄하게 되고, 갑 조합의 임직원은 을 복지회의 임직원을 겸직하게 되므로 을 복지회에 갑 조합과 구별되는 독자적인 대표기관이 존재한다고 보이지 않는 점
- 을 복지회는 회원들의 다수결에 따라 스스로의 의사를 결정할 수 있는 별도의 독립된 의사결정기구를 갖는다고 볼 수 없는 점
- 을 복지회가 갑 조합과는 독립된 예산이나 자산을 갖고 있다고 볼 구체적 사정도 찾아볼 수 없는 점
Unofficial English translation
• The representative of Cooperative A comes to oversee the affairs of Welfare Association B as its representative, and the officers and employees of Cooperative A concurrently serve as the officers and employees of Welfare Association B, so that there appears to be no representative organ of Welfare Association B that is distinct from that of Cooperative A
• Welfare Association B cannot be regarded as having a separate and independent decision-making body capable of determining its own will by a majority vote of its members
• Nor can any concrete circumstance be found to support the view that Welfare Association B has a budget or assets independent of those of Cooperative A
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2022. 8. 11. 선고 2022다227688 판결(공2022하, 1851)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2022Da227688 decided August 11, 2022 (Gong 2022 Ha, 1851)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1999. 4. 23. 선고 99다4504 판결(공1999상, 1018), 대법원 2008. 5. 29. 선고 2007다63683 판결, 대법원 2022. 8. 11. 선고 2022다227688 판결(공2022하, 1851)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When only the sub-organisation appeals, do the claims against the parent corporation also lose finality and come before the appellate court?
A remand judgment that exercises the power to clarify and decides whether the claims against the taxi union remain open would show how the alternative joint action point is worked out. Rules giving the association its own organs, or a later Supreme Court decision on permissive alternative joint actions, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 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 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
Both share the same test for unincorporated association substance, but the primary labels the opinion as stating requirements and the independent labels it as applying them to the welfare association's facts.
을 복지회가 갑 조합과 구별되는 별개의 독립된 비법인사단이라고 인정하기 어려운데도Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “When only the sub-organisation appeals, do the claims against the parent corporation also lose finality and come before the appellate court?” vs Independent “Can the former welfare association members recover their allocation refunds from the taxi operators' association itself?”
The primary asks whether claims against the parent corporation lose finality when only the sub-organisation appeals, while the independent asks whether former members can recover refunds from the taxi union itself.
사단법인의 하부조직의 하나라 하더라도 스스로 위와 같은 단체로서의 실체를 갖추고 독자적인 활동을 하고 있다면 사단법인과는 별개의 독립된 비법인사단으로 볼 수 있다.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 first-instance court held that the welfare association had its own staff, was run by majority decisions, and held assets separate from the union's, so it was a separate independent unincorporated association. On the merits it applied Article 42(1) of the Civil Act by analogy to a change of the rules, requiring two thirds of all members' consent, found the amended rules void because they had been made by resolution of the union's board, granted the claims against the welfare association in full, and dismissed those against the union. The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 24 January 2025 (2023Na2037293), adopted both holdings and dismissed the welfare association's appeal.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court examined party capacity ex officio under Article 52 and Article 134 of the Civil Procedure Act, reading the rules against the record: the union's chair, vice-chair and auditor also served as the association's officers, members had no say in appointing them, the bodies named as general meeting, delegates' meeting and board were all the union's, and no independent budget or assets could be found. It held that this misreading of the law on party capacity affected the outcome and reversed the whole judgment. It added that if the claims were such that the association lacked capacity while the union's liability could be established, the suit might be a permissive alternative joint action, so the court below should have examined whether the claims against the union were also kept from becoming final, and it noted the need to exercise the power to clarify on remand.
Distinguishing conditions
- A sub-organisation whose own rules let its members appoint its representatives, giving it a representative body apart from the corporation.
- A sub-organisation with its own general meeting, delegates' meeting or board, able to decide its will by majority of its own members.
- A sub-organisation holding a budget and assets demonstrably independent of the corporation.
Record verification notes
Set the welfare association's rules against each element the Court listed: the articles on officers and their appointment, on the general meeting, delegates' meeting and board, and on the composition of assets. Check whether member contributions were recorded as the association's assets or the union's, and whether the claims against the union were kept from becoming final by a permissive alternative joint action.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 비법인사단으로서의 실체를 인정하기 위한 요건 / 비법인사단의 하부기관이 당사자능력을 가지는지에 관한 사항이 직권조사사항인지 여부(적극) / 사단법인의 하부조직이 비법인사단으로서의 실체를 갖추고 독자적인 활동을 하고 있는 경우, 사단법인과 별개의 독립된 비법인사단으로 볼 수 있는지 여부(적극) [2] 갑 개인택시운송사업조합이 조합원의 공동복리를 위하여 을 복지회를 설립하였고, 갑 조합의 조합원인 병 등이 을 복지회에 입회한 후 복지할당금과 복지기금을 납부하여 적립해 오다가 을 복지회를 탈회하고 할당금환불금의 지급을 신청하였으나, 을 복지회는 복지회 규정이 개정되었으므로 병 등이 조합원 자격을 상실할 때까지 할당금환불금을 지급할 수 없다고 거부하였고, 이에 병 등이 갑 조합의 이사회 결의에 따라 개정된 복지회 규정은 무효라고 주장하며 개정 전 복지회 규정에 따른 할당금환불금의 지급을 구한 사안에서, 을 복지회에 갑 조합과 구별되는 독자적인 대표기관이 존재한다고 보이지 않는 점 등 제반 사정에 비추어 을 복지회가 갑 조합과 구별되는 별개의 독립된 비법인사단이라고 인정하기 어렵다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Requirements for recognizing the substance of an unincorporated association / Whether the question whether a subordinate organ of an unincorporated association has party capacity is a matter to be investigated ex officio (affirmative) / Where a subordinate organization of an incorporated association possesses the substance of an unincorporated association and carries on independent activities, whether it may be regarded as a separate and independent unincorporated association distinct from the incorporated association (affirmative) [2] Cooperative A, a personal taxi transportation business cooperative, established Welfare Association B for the common welfare of its members, and C, etc., members of Cooperative A, joined Welfare Association B and paid welfare allocation contributions and a welfare fund, accumulating them over time; thereafter, C, etc. withdrew from Welfare Association B and applied for payment of refunds of the allocation contributions, but Welfare Association B refused, stating that, because the Welfare Association rules had been amended, it could not pay the refunds of the allocation contributions until C, etc. lost their membership qualification. In a case where C, etc. claimed that the Welfare Association rules, as amended by a resolution of the board of directors of Cooperative A, were void and sought payment of the refunds of the allocation contributions under the Welfare Association rules prior to the amendment, holding that, in light of all the circumstances, including the fact that Welfare Association B did not appear to have a representative organ distinct from that of Cooperative A, it is difficult to recognize Welfare Association B as a separate and independent unincorporated association distinct from Cooperative A
Summary of the holding
[1] 어떤 단체가 고유의 목적을 가지고 사단적 성격을 가지는 규약을 만들어 이에 근거하여 의사결정기관 및 집행기관인 대표자를 두는 등의 조직을 갖추고 있고, 기관의 의결이나 업무집행방법이 다수결의 원칙에 의하여 행하여지며, 구성원의 가입이나 탈퇴 등에 따른 변경에 관계없이 단체 그 자체가 존속되고, 그 조직에 의하여 대표의 방법, 총회나 이사회 등의 운영, 자본의 구성, 재산의 관리 기타 단체로서의 주요사항이 확정되어 있는 경우에는 비법인사단으로서의 실체를 가진다. 비법인사단의 하부기관이 당사자능력을 가지는지에 관한 사항은 직권조사사항이다. 사단법인의 하부조직의 하나라 하더라도 스스로 위와 같은 단체로서의 실체를 갖추고 독자적인 활동을 하고 있다면 사단법인과는 별개의 독립된 비법인사단으로 볼 수 있다. [2] 갑 개인택시운송사업조합이 조합원의 공동복리를 위하여 을 복지회를 설립하였고, 갑 조합의 조합원인 병 등이 을 복지회에 입회한 후 복지할당금과 복지기금을 납부하여 적립해 오다가 을 복지회를 탈회하고 할당금환불금의 지급을 신청하였으나, 을 복지회는 복지회 규정이 개정되었으므로 병 등이 조합원 자격을 상실할 때까지 할당금환불금을 지급할 수 없다고 거부하였고, 이에 병 등이 갑 조합의 이사회 결의에 따라 개정된 복지회 규정은 무효라고 주장하며 개정 전 복지회 규정에 따른 할당금환불금의 지급을 구한 사안에서, 을 복지회 규정에 따르면 갑 조합의 대표자가 을 복지회의 대표자로 업무를 총괄하게 되고, 갑 조합의 임직원은 을 복지회의 임직원을 겸직하게 되므로 을 복지회에 갑 조합과 구별되는 독자적인 대표기관이 존재한다고 보이지 않는 점, 을 복지회는 회원들의 다수결에 따라 스스로의 의사를 결정할 수 있는 별도의 독립된 의사결정기구를 갖는다고 볼 수 없는 점, 을 복지회가 갑 조합과는 독립된 예산이나 자산을 갖고 있다고 볼 구체적 사정도 찾아볼 수 없는 점 등에 비추어 을 복지회가 갑 조합과 구별되는 별개의 독립된 비법인사단이라고 인정하기 어려운데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 비법인사단의 당사자능력에 관한 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제31조, 민사소송법 제52조, 제134조[직권조사사항] / [2] 민법 제31조, 제42조 제1항, 민사소송법 제52조, 제134조[직권조사사항], 여객자동차 운수사업법 제53조, 제55조
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