Incheon Attorney Consultation | Client in an Unjust Enrichment Recovery Suit of Approximately 70 Million Won Obtains a Decision Granting the Claim in Full Through an Incheon Attorney Consultation

The client, who resides in Incheon, entered into a cooperative membership agreement with a local cooperative and paid a down payment of approximately 70 million won.

In accordance with the agreement, the cooperative issued a letter of guarantee with the following content.

*We guarantee that, if the application for approval of the business plan is not filed within 2023, the amount already paid upon joining the cooperative will be refunded.*

Through this letter of guarantee, the cooperative confirmed the refund, stating that it would return the full amount paid in such a case.

The problem, however, was that this refund agreement constituted a disposal of the members' contributions, which are collectively owned property, yet it was made without going through the relevant general assembly resolution required for such a disposal.

The Incheon attorney argued that the refund agreement was invalid because, although it constituted an act of disposition of the members' contributions, which were collectively owned property, it had not gone through the general meeting resolution required for it.

Had there been no refund agreement, the client would not have entered into the cooperative membership contract.

Through the consultation with the Incheon attorney, the attorney argued that the cooperative membership contract in this case, which was entered into as a single whole with the refund agreement, was likewise invalid, and emphasized that the defendant must return the down payment and other members' contributions it had received as unjust enrichment.

The Incheon attorney set out to rebut the arguments of the defendant cooperative.

The defendant argued, in essence, that the membership contract was valid because a resolution of ratification had been made at the inaugural general meeting in connection with the guarantee document in this case.

The Incheon attorney rebutted that, looking at the stenographic record of the inaugural general meeting that the defendant submitted as the basis for subsequent ratification, the agreement under the guarantee document in this case, which was the subject of ratification, was not specified at the meeting, and no sufficient explanation was given regarding the fact that the agreement under the guarantee document in this case was invalid and that ratifying the agreement would aggravate the shortfall in project costs, thereby increasing the contributions that members would have to bear.

Through the consultation with the Incheon attorney, the attorney emphasized that, in light of these circumstances, there were no grounds to find that the members had been aware of the above facts.

Responding to a situation like that of the client who requested a consultation with the Incheon attorney requires legal expertise, including complex interpretation of legal principles, analysis of the contract, and review of precedents.

When facing such a complex legal issue, consulting an attorney with extensive relevant knowledge and litigation experience is recommended.

Daeryun Law Firm is available for consultation 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

If you are seeking an attorney consultation for a situation such as the above, you are welcome to contact the Daeryun Law Firm 🔗Incheon attorney office at any time.