1. Facts and Background

The clients were (i) Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Cooperative, an entity established under the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (the "Urban Improvement Act") and now in liquidation, and (ii) the representative liquidator of that cooperative. A member of the cooperative (the obligor) had publicly announced, in his capacity as the representative of proposing members representing not less than one-tenth of the membership, that he would convene an extraordinary general meeting on 9 May 2026 with the following agenda items: (1) the dismissal and suspension from duties of the representative liquidator and the other liquidators, (2) the appointment of a new four-person liquidator team and the designation of a new representative liquidator, (3) the approval of the continued service of the auditor, and (4) the entrustment of damages claims and other legal measures concerning alleged unlawful acts. Concluding that the convening procedures and the structure of the agenda items were materially defective, the clients retained LKP shortly before the scheduled meeting to apply for a provisional injunction prohibiting the holding of the extraordinary general meeting.

2. Key Legal Issues

The main issues were: (i) whether Article 43, paragraph 4 of the Urban Improvement Act — which provides that a cooperative officer may be removed by a majority of those present at a general meeting convened upon the request of not less than one-tenth of the members — may be applied by analogy to the dismissal of liquidators after the cooperative has entered liquidation; (ii) whether agenda items other than the dismissal of liquidators and closely related suspensions from duties (i.e., the appointment of new liquidators, the approval of the continued service of the auditor, and the entrustment of damages claims and legal measures) require, for the convening of an extraordinary general meeting, compliance with the procedure under Article 44, paragraph 2 of the Urban Improvement Act, Article 41-2 of its Enforcement Decree, and Article 20 of the cooperative's articles of association (i.e., convening by the chairperson, in default of which by the auditor, in default of which by the representative of the proposing members with the approval of the Mayor of Uijeongbu City), together with the attachment of identity documents of the proposing members; and whether the obligor's request to convene satisfied those procedural and formal requirements; (iii) whether a written resolution form designed to record the dismissal of multiple liquidators on a single, bundled basis substantively infringes the voting rights of those members who would consent to the dismissal of some, but not all, of the named liquidators; (iv) whether the designation of the residential address of the representative of the proposing members (the obligor), rather than the address of the cooperative itself, as the place to which written resolutions should be returned, violated Article 22, paragraph 3 of the cooperative's articles of association; and (v) whether the change of the date of the extraordinary general meeting from the date originally specified in the proposal preserved the legal effect of the original proposal, and how to organize, as grounds for the necessity of preservation, the prospect of harm not adequately remediable by post-judgment monetary compensation.

3. Implementation and Outcome

LKP (i) analyzed the relevant provisions of the Urban Improvement Act, its Enforcement Decree, and the articles of association, and — taking, as its working premise, the interpretation that Article 43, paragraph 4 may be applied by analogy to the dismissal of liquidators — identified as the principal issues the structure of the agenda items in the present matter and the defects in the written resolution form; (ii) organized, on an item-by-item basis, the manner in which the convening procedure under Article 44, paragraph 2 of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 20 of the articles of association had not been complied with for the agenda items other than the dismissal of liquidators (agenda items 2 to 4); (iii) emphasized that a written resolution form structured to record the dismissal of multiple liquidators on a single, bundled basis substantively infringed the voting rights of the cooperative members; and (iv) systematically presented, as grounds for the necessity of preservation, the prospect of further disputes arising from any change in the cooperative's representative and the consequent risk of harm not adequately remediable by post-judgment monetary compensation. On 8 May 2026, the Uijeongbu District Court (a) found that, in respect of agenda item 1, the defect in the written resolution form was sufficiently serious to warrant prohibiting the resolution itself, (b) found that the obligor lacked authority to convene the extraordinary general meeting in respect of agenda items 2 to 4, and (c) found that, in matters affecting numerous interested parties, public notice of the provisional injunction would constitute an effective and appropriate means of resolving and preventing further disputes; on those grounds, the court granted the application in full, ordering (1) that the obligor was prohibited from holding the extraordinary general meeting scheduled for 9 May 2026, (2) that the court bailiff was to give public notice of the order, and (3) that the costs of the proceedings were to be borne by the obligor. The case is of practical significance in the urban-improvement context: while presupposing the analogical application of Article 43, paragraph 4 of the Urban Improvement Act to the dismissal of liquidators following entry into liquidation, the decision provides clear guidance on the substantive infringement of voting rights through agenda construction and the design of written resolution forms.