(b) Whether a clan that has appointed a clan representative has to be asserted and proved by a legitimate convening authority;

B. In the absence of special regulations or general practices with respect to the method of convening a clan and passing a resolution, it is customary to convene a meeting of the head of the clan who is a legitimate convening authority or a male with the consent of a majority of the members present at the meeting and pass a resolution with the consent of a majority of the members present at the meeting. Since the appointment of the representative of this case is a matter of ex officio examination as to whether or not the above resolution was made in accordance with the general customs, it shall be deliberated and determined ex officio on whether or not the above method was made, and it shall be determined that this case’s resolution was closed without the above measures, and that there was no assertion or evidence as to whether it was convened by the legitimate convening authority of the clan shall be deemed to have committed

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the plaintiff's clan member was a clan member with only 234 members who are actually less than the majority of the members of the clan and 283 members who were appointed by the non-party among the members of the clan at the clan held on June 11, 1974, and that the non-party was appointed at the clan meeting held on the ground that 685 members of the plaintiff's clan were the descendants of the clan which created the clan clan's loyalty of the clan clan created by this clan, and that the non-party was appointed at the clan clan meeting held on the ground that 21 members among the members of the clan were present at the clan, and the sum of the members of the clan delegated in writing, but the non-party was merely 184 members, and there is no legitimate resolution of the majority of the members of the clan who attended the clan, and it is unlawful for the majority of the members of the clan to be present at the clan's meeting without the consent of the majority of the members of the clan.

However, in the appointment of clan members of the clan, if there are regulations or general practices regarding the appointment of clan members, it shall be customary to convene a meeting of the clan members of the clan and elect the majority of the members present at the meeting (see Supreme Court Decision 4291Da1193 delivered on August 20, 195, Supreme Court Decision 64Da1193 delivered on August 24, 1965). It shall be deemed that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the appointment of clan members of the clan members of the clan as stated above, without the consent of the majority of the members present at the meeting, and it shall be deemed that the court below's decision is unlawful because it is not proper to convene a meeting of the clan members of the clan members of the clan members of the clan members because it is not proper to convene a meeting of the clan members of the clan members of the clan members of the clan members of the clan members of which there is no sufficient evidence to prove that the majority of the members present at the meeting of the clan members of the clan members of the clan members of the court of the court.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)