코리아포스트 사설

?

단축키

Prev이전 문서

Next다음 문서

크게 작게 위로 아래로 댓글로 가기 인쇄
?

단축키

Prev이전 문서

Next다음 문서

크게 작게 위로 아래로 댓글로 가기 인쇄

소위 ‘2008 재영한인회 소송관련

 

[채러티 전문 Barrister 의견서]

 

이 의견서를 구하게 된 간단한 배경은 아래와 같다.

 

2008년 한인회 소송이 있었고 당시 피고이었던 조태현 석일수씨가 선임한 마틴해리스 변호사 회사인 Oakwell Dispute Consultancy 회사가 두 피고인(조,석) 으로부터 받지 못한 수임료를 2010년에 와서 당시 후임인 서병일 한인회 회장에게 변제하라고 소송을 걸어왔다.

 

이에 2010년 당시 재영한인회 회장 부회장이던 서병일씨 조범재씨가 전임자의 소송비를 변제할 의무 또는 책임이 있는지를 알아보려는 의도에서 당시 한인회 변호사인 Headleys 변호사 회사를 통해서 채러티 전문Barrister 인 Joshua Winfield 씨에게 전문가 의견을 구해 본 것임.

 

이 전문가의 아래 의견서에서 보다시피 후임자인 ‘두 피고(서병일 조범재)는 조태현씨 석일수씨의 변호사인 Oakwell 의 마틴해리스 변호사 비용에 책임이 없다’ 라는 강한 의견에도 불구하고 당시 회장단(서병일 조범재)은 마틴해리스 변호사에게 한인회 자금에서 그 비용을 지불하였고, 그도 한인회 자금이 부족하여 ‘교육기금’ 에서 융자를 얻어서까지 지출한 것으로 나타났다.

 

이로 인해 당시 해당 소송비 지출이 합당했는지, 교육기금으로부터 융자한 자금은 누가 갚아야 하는지에 대해 아직도 논란이 끊이지 않고 있는 실정이다.

                                                                                                          Korea Post

 

 

BYUNG-IL SUH AND BEOM JAE CHO

(ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE KOREA N RESIDENTS SOCIETY)

In the matter of Oakwell Commercial Disputes Consultancy v Suh

Oakwell Commercial Dispute 변호사 ((병일)

(KRS 대신한서병일과 조범재의 문의에 대한 의견서

 

OPINION

 

Instructions (개요)

 

1       I have been asked to advise Byung-Il Suh and Beom Jae Cho (“the Officers”) who are the current President and Vice-President respectively of a charitable unincorporated association, the Korean Resident Society in United Kingdom (registered charity no. 1040160), known as the Korean Residents Society (“the Society”), as to their personal liability and the Society’s liability to pay the legal fees of Oakwell Commercial Disputes Consultancy (“Oakwell”) incurred in defending a claim arising from an election of the Society on 24 November 2007. I have been asked to address specifically whether (1) the defendants to the original claim had sufficient ostensible authority to instruct Oakwell on behalf of the Society and (2) Martin Harris of Oakwell knew when he was instructed that the board’s approval was required before fees were incurred.

 

         나는 비법인 자선단체인 재영한인회 (이하  “ the Society” 한인회) (자선단체 등록번호 제 1040160 호)의 현 회장 및 부회장인 서병일과 조범재 (이하 "임원들")로부터  2007 년 11 월 24 일 한인회 선거에서 비롯된 소송을 방어하면서 초래된 Oakwell Commercial Disputes Consultancy 변호사  (이하 "오크웰")의 법률 비용에 대해서 그들 개인과 한인회의 지급 책임에 관하여 조언해 줄 것을 요청 받았다. 나는 특히 (1) 최초의 소송에 대응한 피고측 (조, 석을 의미)이 ‘한인회’를 대신하여 오크웰 변호사에게 사건을 의뢰할 수 있을만큼 충분히 명문화된 권한을 가졌는지 여부와  (2)  오크웰의 마틴해리스가 두피고인(조,석)으로부터 수임을 받을 당시 발생하는 비용결제는  한인회  이사진의승인이  필요하다는 사실을 알고 있었는지 여부에 대해 구체적으로 설명해 줄 것을 요청 받았다.

 

Background (배경)

2       The Society purported to hold a presidential election pursuant to its constitution on or about 24 November 2007 (“the Election”). Following the election, one of the members, Young Geun Park, issued a claim (“the Claim”) on 30 January 2008 against I.S. Seok, who was the retiring president, and Tae Hyeon Cho (“TH Cho”), the president purportedly elected at the Election, alleging electoral malpractice and seeking an order that the election be re-run. According to the intitulement to the Claim, Messrs TH Cho and Seok were “acting on behalf of the Korean Residents Society”.

 

한인회는 2007 년 11 월 24 일 (이하 "선거") 정관에 따라 회장선거를 실시하였다. 선거 이후, 회원 중 한 명인박영근 (Young Geun Park)이 2008 년 1 월 30 일전회장 석일수와 당선자 조태현에 대하여 부정선거를 주장하며 재 선거명령을 요청하는 소송 (이하 "소송")을 제기했다. 그 소송에 대응한 소송서류제목에 조씨와 석씨는 자신들이 "한인회를대신하여 행위”하고 있었다고 적었다. (부연설명) 일반적으로 acting 했다고 해도 acting 한 주체(조, 석)가 자동적으로 KRS 를 법적으로  '대표해서' 또는 '위임을 받아서' 한 것으로 해석할 수는 없다. 

 

3       The claim was heard in the Queen’s Bench Division¹ and, following a threeday trial on 10-12 March 2008, in a judgment dated 23 April 2008, HHJ Mackie QC found that there had been a breach of the constitution and indicated that he intended to make a declaration that the election be re-run. 
이 소송은 Queen's Bench Division 에서 2008 년 3 월 10 일에서 12 일까지 3 일간 열렸고, 2008 년 4 월 23 일 판결에서Mackie판사는 정관 위반이 있었음을 발견하고 재선거를 선언했다.

 

4       Oakwell were the defendants’ solicitors for the Claim. They allege that they were retained by the Society “acting through its then representative, Mr Il Soo Seok” on 25 December 2007 to advise the Society and its members on the issues arising from the Election and to act for them in the Claim when it was issued. They issued five invoices between 31 December 2007 and 23 December 2008. The first four of these were paid out of the Society’s funds, apparently on the authority of TH Cho. The fifth invoice, in the sum of £39,966.67, remains unpaid, and Oakwell have issued a debt claim against the Officers and TH Cho, acting on behalf of the Society.

        Oakwell은 소송에서 피고측 변호인이었다. Oakwell은 2007년 12월 25일 “대리인인 석일수씨를 통해 활동하고 있는” 한인회에 의해,선거에서 발생된 문제에 관해 한인회와 회원들에게 조언하고, 제기된 소송에서 한인회를 위해 일하기 위해서 고용되었다고 주장한다.Oakwell은 2007. 12. 31부터 2008. 12. 23일 사이에 5개의 인보이스를 발행했다. 처음 4개는 명백히 조태현씨의 승인 하에 한인회의 자금으로 지급되었다. 5번째 £39,966.67짜리 인보이스는 미지급 상태이고, Oakwell변호사가 한인회를 대신한 두 임원 (서병일, 조태현)과 조태현씨를 상대로 채무소송을 걸었다.

 

      1 It seems to me that the claim fell within the definition of “charity proceedings” in s.33 of the Charities Act 1993 and as such required the permission of the Charity Commission and the joinder of the Attorney-General and was subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Chancery Division. However, this was not raised at the time and now it is too late.

          소송은Charities Act 1993 33조에 의해 ‘채리티 소송 범주에 들어가서 Charity Commission 허가와 법무장관의 결정이 요구되고, Chancery Division  관할법원이 되어야 하는 것으로 보인다그러나 당시에 이것이 제기되지 않았고 지금은 너무 늦었다.

 

5       In a defence signed by the Officers, it is averred that (1) Oakwell were retained on 13 February 2008 (2) Mr Seok had no authority to instruct Oakwell on behalf of the Society at the relevant time; (3) neither the Board of Directors nor the members authorised the instruction of Oakwell, as required by the constitution; (4) notwithstanding the intitulement of the Claim, Messrs Seok and TH Cho were defendants in their personal capacity, due to their involvement in the malpractice alleged and (5) at no time did the Society support the proceedings.

        임원들 (서병일과 조범재)이 사인한 변론서(마틴해리스 변호사의 채무소송 건에 대한)에 다음과 같이 증언하고 있다. (1) Oakwell 변호사는 2008년 2월 13일 고용되었다 (2) 석일수씨는 그 때 한인회를 대신하여 Oakwell변호사에게 사건을 의뢰할 권한이 없었다. (3) 이사회나 회원들이Oakwell에게 정관에서 요구하는 바대로 변호사 선임을 승인한 적이 없다 (4) 아무튼 소송 서류 제목에 석일수 조태현씨가 부정행위에 연관되었기 때문에 개인 자격으로 피고였다 (5) 한인회는 결코 이 소송을 지원한 적이 없었다.


 

6       The Officers now seek advice as to the liability of the Society and/or themselves personally as charity trustees for Oakwell’s unpaid invoice.

        임원들 (서병일씨, 조범재씨)이 미지급된 Oakwell 변호사 비용에 대해 한인회의 책임과 그리고/또는 채리티의 트러스티로서 그들이 개인적으로 책임이 있는지에 대해 지금 조언을 구하고 있다. 

 

Potential principals 잠재적 당사자

7       As the Society is an unincorporated association, it has no legal persona to acquire any liability to Oakwell. It is also impossible to make a contract binding on all the members from time to time.² Therefore, any liability is likely to fall on (1) the members at the time the contract was made (2) the persons having control and management of the Society from time to time (3) the persons having control and management of the Society at the time of the contract or (4) another group that gave Mr Seok authority to act on its behalf. The answer will depend on whether Mr Seok was acting as agent of one of these groups, which is a question of fact in the particular case.


        한인회는 비법인화된 단체이므로  Oakwell 변호사에 대한 어떤 책임을 인수할 법률적인 개체(사람 또는 법인)가 없다. 때때로 모든 회원을 구속할 수 있는 계약을 하는 것 또한 불가능하다. 따라서 오크웰변호사에대한 채무는 다음과 같은 그룹들이 책임져야 할 것으로 보인다  (1) 계약체결 시점의 회원들 (2) 그때 (계약 당시)당시 한인회를 통제하고 관리한 사람들 (3) 계약 맺을 당시 한인회를 통제하고 관리한 사람들 또는 (4) 이 소송 건으로 석일수를 한인회 대리인으로 선정한 모임(그룹)이 책임을 져야 할 것이다. 이 경우도 석일수가 과연 이모임을 위해 대리인행위를 했는지 여부가 쟁점이다. 

 

        2 See Warburton: Unincorporated Associations, 2nd ed (Sweet & Maxwell 1992) p 86.

 

 

Liability of the members of the Society 한인회 회원들의 책임

 

8       I am instructed that Mr Seok held office until 31 December 2007 and therefore was still President at the time Oakwell allege he retained them. If the retainer was in fact made in February 2008, when he was no longer President, then the matter is simple in that he would only have had authority if he was given it expressly by the members as a whole in a general meeting (under clause 20). I have seen no evidence to support this.³  I will now go on to consider the position if the retainer was made while Mr Seok was still President.

    [  위3.  If this is incorrect, my instructing solicitors should inform me.  만일 이것이 틀리다면 나를 선임한 변호사는 내게 알려줘야 한다. ]

 

         나는 석일수씨가 2007년 12월 31일까지 근무했으므로 Oakwell이 그들을 고용했다고 주장한 그 시점에서 여전히 회장이었다고 들었다. 만일 피고용인이 석일수씨가 더 이상 회장이 아닌 2008년 2월에 변론 의뢰가 이루어 졌다면 문제는 간단하다. 즉, 석일수씨는 정관20조에 의해 총회에서 전체 회원에 의해 명확하게 권한을 부여 받았다면 그는 변론을 의뢰할 권한을 가졌을 것이다. 나는 이를 뒷받침 할 증거를 본 적이 없다. 나는 이제 석일수씨가 여전히 회장이었던 동안 변론 의뢰가 되었다는 것에 대해 생각해 보겠다

  

9       There is no power in the constitution allowing the President in terms to retain solicitors on behalf of the Society. Although the position is not entirely clear cut, it appears that the persons with the power to manage the affairs of an unincorporated association have the implied power to contract with third parties to the extent of the existing funds of the association. This means that if Mr Seok had authority under the constitution to act as agent of the members at the time, Oakwell would be entitled to be paid out of any money held by the Society, e.g. in its bank account.

        정관에서는 한인회를 대신하여 변호사를 고용하라고 회장에게 권한을 주지 않았다. 비록 입장이 완전히 명확하지는 않지만, 비법인 단체의 업무를 관리하는 권한을 가진 사람은 협회의 현재 자금 한도 내에서 제3자와 계약을 할 수 있는 묵시적 권한을 가진 것으로 보인다. 석일수씨는 당시에 회원들의 대리인으로서 행동하라는 정관 내의 권한을 가졌었다면, Oakwell은 한인회가 가지고 있는 자금 내에서 (예를 들면 은행계좌 안에 있는) 지급받을 권리가 있음을 의미한다. 

 

10    The relevant powers in the constitution are in clause 11, which provides that the President “is in charge of general affairs” and clause 13, which gives the Board of Directors “authority to decide on important matters”. I incline to the view that retaining solicitors to act for the Society in litigation constitutes an important matter outside the general affairs of the Society, so that the power to do so without calling a general meeting, if any, belongs to the Directors. Therefore Mr Seok had no actual authority to retain Oakwell on behalf of the Society even to the extent of the funds of the Society. It should be noted that the court may take a different view if there is evidence that the President in fact exercised this type of authority without dissent on a regular basis.

     

 

          정관에 있는 관련 권한은 11조에서, 회장에게 ‘일반 업무에 대한 책임’이 있고, 13조에서 이사회에 ‘중요한 업무를 결정할 권한’을 주고 있다. 나는 한인회를 위해 소송에서 변론을 맡을 변호사를 고용하는 것은 한인회의 일반업무를 벗어나는 중요한 문제에 해당하고 따라서 총회 소집 없이 그렇게 할 권한은 이사회에 속한다는 견해를 받아들이고 싶다. 따라서 석일수씨는 한인회의 자금을 써가면서까지 한인회 대신 Oakwell 변호사를 고용할 실제 권한이 없었다. 만일 회장이 정기적으로 반대 의견 없이 이런 유형의 권한을 행사한 증거가 있다면 법원은 다른 견해를 취할 수도 있다는 것을 유의해야 한다.

 

11     To the extent that the funds at the date of the retainer are insufficient to pay Oakwell, I consider that Mr Seok did not have authority to bind the members personally. It is a long-established principle that the managing committee of an unincorporated association has no implied authority to pledge the credit of members for work done.  It follows that, even if the relevant power was vested in the President under the Society’s constitution, it would not give Mr Seok implied authority to bind the members for the time being to a retainer with Oakwell.

 

   4 See Fleming v Hector [1838] 2 M & W 172 per Parke B at 185.

 

      

마틴해리스 변호사 선임 당시에Oakwell변호사에게 지급할 한인회 자금이 부족하여 기존 한인회자금을 초과해서까지 석일수씨가 모든 회원 개인들에게 변호사비용을 책임 지울 권한을 갖고 있지 않다고 본다. 비법인협회(Unincorprated association)의 관리위원회는 일이 되어 지도록 하기 위해 회원들의 신용을 담보로 제공할 권한은 갖고 있지 않다는 것이 오랜 기간 동안 만들어진 원칙이다. 비록 정관에 의해 회장에게 관련된 권한이 설령 주어졌다 하더라도, 석일수씨가 일정기간 동안 모든 회원들에게 Oakwell이 변론담당이 되도록 묶을 수 있는 권한을 주지는 않았다. 

 

 

12     On the facts of which I am aware, it seems unlikely that Mr Seok had ostensible authority to bind the Society. The general rule (subject only to very limited exceptions that do not apply here) is that “a representation by the agent himself that he has authority cannot create apparent authority in him, unless the principal can be regarded as having in some way instigated or permitted it, or put the agent in a position where he appears to be authorised to make it”.  There is no indication that there has been any representation to Oakwell by the Board of Directors, the members as a whole or a properly authorised agent of the members that Mr Seok had authority to retain them on behalf of the Society. I am instructed that Oakwell had not previously acted for the Society.

         

내가 인지하는 사실에 비추어 석일수씨는 한인회를 묶을 수 있는 명문화된 권한을 갖지 않은 것으로 보인다.  일반적인 규칙 (이 경우에 해당되지는 않는 아주 제한된 예외가 있지만)은 대리인 자신이 권한을 가지고  있음을 나타내는 표현은, 만일 (위임자) 본인이 어떤 방식으로 그것을 유발했거나 허용한 것으로 간주되지 않거나 또는 그것을 할 수 있는 권한이 있는 것으로 보이는 위치에  대리인을 놓지 않는다면, 그에게 명백한 권한을 부여하지 않았다는 것이다. (자기 스스로 대리인으로서 권한을 가졌다는 주장하는 것은 결코 명백한 실질적인 권한이 부여됐다고 볼 수 없다 라는 의미)

이경우 이사진 또는 전체회원이나 일부 위임된 대리인이 석일수씨가 한인회를 대신해서 Oakwell 변호사회사를 선임해도 좋다고 명시한 흔적이 없다. 또한 Oakwell 변호사회사가 그전에 한인회를 위하여 일을 한적이 없다고 들었다. 

 

   5 Bowstead & Reynolds on Agency, 18th ed (Sweet & Maxwell 2006) para 8-023.

 

13    Notwithstanding the foregoing, the members may be liable if they are held to have ratified the contract after it was made. This will be the case if they are found to have known about the true situation and acquiesced in it. Assuming that paragraph 10 of the defence to Oakwell’s claim is correct, this is unlikely. However, Oakwell’s evidence when it emerges may change the position.

        전술한 내용에도 불구하고, 회원은 계약이 체결된 후 계약을 비준했다면 책임이 있다. 이것은 그들이 진정한 상황을 알고 그것을 묵인했을 때 해당된다. Oakwell의 소송에 대한 변론 10항이 정확하다면 이런 경우는 거의 발생하지 않는다. 그러나Oakwell의 증거가 나오면 입장이 바뀔 수 있다.


 

14     In summary, on the available evidence, I would assess the prospects of establishing that Mr Seok in retaining Oakwell did not have the authority to bind the members either to the extent of the existing funds of the Society or their personal credit at around 65%.

현재 나와있는 증거로 요약한다면 석일수씨가 마틴해리스를 선임할 권한을 갖지 않았을 뿐 아니라 수임료의 책임을 한인회 기존자금 또는 회원개인들 신용에까지 범위를 확대해서 물릴 수 없다' 라는 가능성은 65% 정도로 평가 할 수 있다 

 

Personal liability of the Board of Directors 이사회의 개인 책임

15    It is often the case that the managing committee, who have control of an unincorporated association’s affairs, are held to be the principals in contracts made with third parties. It is a moot point whether this is true of the Society, given the wording in clauses 11 and 13 of the constitution, to which I have referred above. What is clear is that the constitution gives the President no general power to bind the Directors, and there is no indication that Mr Seok was given any express authority by the Directors in this instance. Therefore I would assess the prospects of establishing that the Directors are not liable to Oakwell as principals on the retainer at 65-70%.

 

비법인인 한인회의 업무를 통제하는 관리위원회가 제3자와의 계약에서 당사자로 유지되는 경우가 

종종 있다. 내가 위에서 언급한 정관 11조, 13조에 있는 문구를 보면 이 경우가 한인회에 해당되는지는 논쟁할 가치가 없다. 명백한 것은 정관에서 회장에게 이사들을 묶을 수 있는 일반적인 

권한을 부여하지 않았고, 석일수씨가 이사들로부터 명시적인 권한을 부여 받은 표시도 없다는 것이다. 따라서 나는 '이사진이 변호사 수임당사자로서 Oakwell 변호사비에 책임이 없다' 에 65-70% 정도로 평가한다. 

 

Personal liability of the Officers  임원의 개인 책임

 

16    I consider that even if Mr Seok was capable of binding himself as President in by retaining Oakwell, this does not mean that his successor will also be bound. The general rule is that the principals are fixed at the date the contract is made and there is no provision for substitution.  This must also be true of Mr Beom Jae Cho, whose predecessor as Vice-President apparently was not even an original party to the retainer.

 

6 The terms of the retainer may provide for this expressly, but I have seen no such evidence.

 

         나는 비록 석일수씨가 Oakwell 변호사의 수임계약에 회장으로서 스스로를 묶을 수는 있었지만, 이것이 그의 후임자도 묶는다는 것을 의미하지는 않는다고 생각한다. 계약당시 정해진 당사자가 추후에 다른 사람으로 대체된다는 조항은 없는 것이 일반적인 원칙이다.  또한 Oakwell 과 계약한 원래 계약서의 당사자에 '부회장' 이 계약당사자가 아닌 것을 비춰볼 때 지금 부회장인 조범재씨는 당연히 당사자가 될 수 없다. (즉, 석일수씨가 당시 소송의 당사자로 스스로 묶을 수는 있었지만 그렇다고 다음 후임자로 당사자를 바꿔치기 할 수는 없다는 의미이고 조범재씨도 또한 결코 당사자가 될 수 없다’ 라는 의견)

 

17     Moreover, if it is correct that TH Cho acted only with Mr Seok and without the knowledge of the Directors or the Officers in paying Oakwell’s invoices and conducting the litigation, there can be no question of the Officers being estopped from denying that they were principals. As such, I would assess the prospects of the Officers avoiding liability to Oakwell as principals on the retainer at around 70%.


 

더욱이 조태현씨가  이사진이나 집행부에 알리지 않고 오직 석일수씨하고만 소송을 진행하고 Oakwell 청구서를 지불했다면 당연히 Officers (여기서는서병일, 조범재) 는 그계약서의 당사자가 아니라는 것은 의문의 여지가 없다.  그래서 나는 두 사람(서병일, 조범재)이 Oakwell 변호사회사에 대한 채무의 당사자로서 책임이 없다 라는 가능성을 70% 로 평가할 수 있다.

 

Liability of TH Cho 조태현씨의 책임

 

18     If it is correct that Mr Seok was not acting as agent of the members or the Directors but as principal, then TH Cho is also likely to be liable. He was a party to the Claim and as such was represented by Oakwell. Further, he authorised the payments of Oakwell’s invoices out of the Society’s funds. In the circumstances, there is a strong argument that Mr Seok was acting as his agent in retaining Oakwell, or that he later ratified the retainer on his own behalf. The members may also have a claim against TH Cho to recover the money previously paid out of its funds to Oakwell, if he and Mr Seok are found to be personally liable. I can advise in more detail on this issue if required.

 

         만일 석일수씨가 회원이나 이사들의 대리인으로서가 아니라 (본인 스스로 ) 당사자로서 행위를 한 것이 맞는다면, 조태현씨 역시 책임이 있을 것 같다. 조태현씨는 소송의 한 당사자였고, 그래서 Oakwell이 그의 소송의 대리인이 되었다. 나아가 그는 한인회의 자금으로  Oakwell의 인보이스에 지급하도록 승인했다. 이런 배경을 살펴보면, 석일수씨가 Oakwell을 선임하는데 그(조태현)의 대리인으로 활동했거나, 또는 그가 나중에 그 자신을 위한 변호사로 선임한 것을 승인했다는 것으로 보는 편이 맞다. 회원들은, 만일 조태현씨와 석일수씨가 개인적으로 책임이 있다고 밝혀진다면, 이전에 한인회 자금으로Oakwell에게 지급한 돈을 조태현씨에게 변상하라고 요구할 수도 있다. 요청한다면 나는 이 문제에 대해 더 자세한 조언을 줄 수 있다. [추후에 법정에서 이 소송의 방어 defence 는 한인회 또는 그 회원들을 위해 이뤄진 것이 아니고 그 들 두 피고인 자신들을 위한 방어로 봐야 한다고 판결이 났음. 그래서 두 피고인이 원고의 모든 법정 비용을 지불해야 한다는 명령이 났음. 후에 두 피고인이 항소를 거듭했지만 끝까지 법정은 두 개인의 책임으로 결론]

 

 

 

Martin Harris’s knowledge of the constitution 정관에 대한 마틴 해리스의 인지여부


 

19     Although I have been specifically requested to advise as to whether Mr Harris knew the power to instruct Oakwell belonged to the Directors rather than the President under the constitution, I consider that it is a question of fact which I am unable to answer on the basis of the material I have seen. There is no way of knowing what information was provided to Mr Harris by Mr Seok on 25 November 2007 or 13 February 2008, or at any other time. I am instructed that the Officers were not present at either of the meetings so they cannot assist. This is not a case where constructive notice is relevant. When witness statements have been exchanged, I can assess the strength of the Claimant’s evidence in this area, but regret that I can advise no further at present.

 

         나는 정관에 Oakwell에게 의뢰할 권한이 회장이 아니라 이사에게 귀속되어 있다는 것을 마틴 해리스씨가 알았는지 아닌지에 대해조언을 줄 것을 특별히 요청 받았지만, 그것은 내가 여태까지 본 자료에 기초해서는 대답할 수 없는 사실의 문제라고 생각한다. 2007년11월 25일 또는 2008년 2월 13일, 또는 다른 대에 석일수씨가 마틴 해리스에게 어떤 정보를 제공했는지 알 수 있는 방법이 없다. 임원들(서병일, 조범재씨)은 위의 어떤 미팅에도 참석치 않았기 때문에 그들도 이 문제를 도울 수 없다고 들었다. 이것은 의제와 관련이 없다. 양측 증인진술서가 서로 교환 됐을때 이 분야에 대한 원고(마틴해리스)의 증거 능력을 평가할 수 있으나 유감스럽게도 지금은 더 이상 조언을 줄 수가 없다.

 

Part 20 Claim

20     A Part 20 Claim by the Officers would only be advisable where they are liable to Oakwell but are entitled to a contribution from one or more parties who are not defendants. The obvious candidate in this case is Mr Seok, since if the contract was sufficient to bind his successor as President, he will still almost certainly be liable to Oakwell as the original principal. However, given that the Officers’ defence is that neither they nor the Society are liable, it would be sensible wait until they have failed in the claim before incurring the costs of an additional claim.

        

임원들(서병일. 조범재)에 의한 Part 20 Claim(제 3자에게 책임을 전가하는 소송)은 그들이 Oakwell에 책임이 있지만 피고가 아닌 하나 이상의 관계자로부터 분담금을 받을 자격이 있는 경우에만 권장된다. 이 경우 명백한 후보는 석일수씨이다. 왜냐하면 만일 그 계약이 후임 회장을 충분히 묶을 수 있다면 석일수씨는 원래 당사자로서 Oakwell에게 거의 확실히 책임이 있을 것이기 때문이다. 그러나 임원들의 변호에서 그들 자신이나 한인회 모두 책임이 없다는 것임을 감안할 때, 추가 소송의 비용이 청구되기 전에 소송에서 질 때까지 기다리는 것이 합당하다.

 

7 See Ashton & Reid on Club Law (Jordans, 2005) para 12-04(2)(b).

 

 

Constitution정관

21     It is my opinion that the Society’s constitution is unsatisfactory in a number of respects, such as failing to demarcate clearly the powers and duties of the President and Directors and to provide an indemnity out of the Society’s funds for those contracting with third parties on behalf of the members. If my instructing solicitors wish me to advise in detail on amendments then I would be happy to do so.

        개인적인 의견으로 한인회의 정관은 많은 측면에서 불충분하다. 회장과 이사진의 권한과 의무를 명백히 구분하고 있지 않고, 회원대신에 제3자와 계약을 맺는 사람을 위한 한인회 자금에서 배상금을 제공하지 못하게 하고 있다. 나에게 업무를 준 변호사가 나에게 좀더 자세한 수정안을 조언하라고 하면 나는 기꺼이 그렇게 할 것이다.

 

22 I do not think there is anything I can usefully add at this stage, but if my instructing solicitors have any questions they should not hesitate to contact me in chambers.

 

JOSHUA WINFIELD

Radcliffe Chambers

11 New Square

Lincoln’s Inn

 

13 May 2010

 

BYUNG-IL SUH AND BEOM JAE CHO

(ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE KOREAN

RESIDENTS SOCIETY)

 

In the matter of Oakwell Commercial

Disputes Consultancy v Suh

 

Joshua Winfield 씨는 채러티 Charity 관련 전문 변호사 Barrister 이고 서병일 조범재씨는 2010 5 당시 한인회 회장 부회장자격으로 의견서를 의뢰하였다.

 

________________________________________

OPINION

________________________________________

 

Hedleys Solicitors LLP

DX 141174 EAST HORSLEY

Headleys 변호사 회사는 당시 한인회 서병일 조범재씨는 담당 변호사회사 

Tel: 01483 284567

Fax: 01483 284817

 

Ref: KOR0011/KJ

 

 

 

 

위 의견서는 현 재영한인회(회장 하재성)가 번역하고 당사 Korea Post 가 일부 수정 보완 및 부연 설명을 하였다.

 

본 의견서 전문을 공개하고 번역한 것은 이번이 처음이다. 그러나 본지는 이 의견서를 인용하여  ‘ 재영한인회와 그 임원들은 이 건으로 소송을 당할 주체가 아니다’ 라고 수 차례 역설한 바 있다.


List of Articles
번호 제목 글쓴이 날짜
38 하나가 된 재영한인회 임시총회 file 운영자 2017.07.04
37 드디어 하나가 된다 운영자 2017.06.05
36 너무도 먼 길로 돌아오고 있다 운영자 2017.05.22
35 비행기 지연에 배상금 청구 가능 file 운영자 2017.05.22
34 영국 집값 떨어지기 시작 file 운영자 2017.05.09
33 북한 정권의 비자금이 런던에서 file 운영자 2017.04.23
32 영국 상원 Bexit 최종 논의 file 운영자 2017.02.20
31 NHS 외국인 환자 선금내야 치료 가능 운영자 2017.02.06
30 영국EU 탈퇴에도 불구하고. file 운영자 2017.01.23
29 서울 관악구 학생들 킹스톤 시장 방문 file 운영자 2017.01.23
28 한인회 통합 논의 다시 하자고? 운영자 2017.01.09
» [채러티 전문 Barrister 의 의견서] 운영자 2017.01.09
26 생뚱맞게 웬 £3000 파운드 기탁? 운영자 2016.12.19
25 재영한인총연합회 정기총회 개최 file 운영자 2016.12.19
24 재영동포 화합과 통일 염원 강연회 file 운영자 2016.11.21
23 제 2회 ‘효 기금’ 마련 골프대회 열려. file 운영자 2016.11.08
22 제발 이젠 도와주세요. 운영자 2016.10.03
21 영국에서는 공무원을 ‘Civil Servant’ 라고 한다 운영자 2016.08.22
20 신임 한인회장에 ‘하재성’씨 단독 출마 당선 file 운영자 2016.08.22
19 얼마나 더 기다려야 하나. 운영자 2016.07.18
Board Pagination Prev 1 2 Next
/ 2