1. Case Summary
a. Party represented by Barun Law
The representative of the initiators of the meeting to dismiss association executives (Petitioner)

b. Background of the case
When the petitioner, as the representative of the initiators of the dismissal meeting, announced the convening of an extraordinary general meeting on March 29, 2025, for the purpose of dismissing executives and suspending their duties, the respondent (the president subject to dismissal) convened a regular general meeting on March 22, 2025, and included as one of its agenda items a resolution to extend the terms of the same executives subject to dismissal.

c. Litigation
The petitioner sought an injunction to prohibit the resolution regarding the term extension of the executives from being passed at the regular general meeting scheduled for March 22, 2025.

2. Court Decision
The court granted the injunction, ruling that a resolution on the extension of the executives' terms may not be adopted at the regular general meeting on March 22, 2025, and that this decision must be publicly announced.

3. Legal Grounds of the Decision
The court accepted our argument that, when an agenda item at a properly convened dismissal meeting is substantially identical to or inconsistent with that of another meeting, a separate meeting cannot be held at a closely adjacent time in a manner that would interfere with the former. Accordingly, the court held that it was improper to convene the regular meeting in a way that could obstruct the scheduled dismissal meeting.

4. Our Arguments and Role
We emphasized that holding a regular general meeting just one week before the scheduled dismissal meeting, with an agenda to resolve the reappointment of the same executives, could hinder the dismissal meeting in a practical sense—particularly in terms of quorum and voting thresholds. The respondent argued that the meetings were held on different dates and involved non-conflicting agenda items, thus not constituting interference. However, we countered this by underscoring the legislative intent of the Urban Redevelopment Act, which aims to ensure democratic control of the association by its members. We also stressed that the president (respondent) lacked the authority to propose a resolution to extend the executives' terms at the regular meeting under such circumstances.

5. Significance of the Decision
In the past, most injunction cases prohibiting meetings that interfere with the dismissal of association executives involved meetings scheduled for the same date. In this case, however, we shifted focus not only to the timing of the meetings but also to the content of the agenda items. The court prohibited a resolution at a meeting held one week before the dismissal meeting that conflicted with the dismissal agenda. This ruling is significant in that it may serve as a precedent to prevent association leadership from preemptively obstructing dismissal efforts through the indirect scheduling of alternative meetings under the guise of regular procedure.