[2] Whether it constitutes a correction of the indication of a party if, even if the name of a clan was changed, it appears that the previous clan and the common ancestor of the same clan appear to be identical and substantially cultivating the same organization (affirmative)

[3] Method of election of clan representative

[2] Even if the name of a clan is changed, such change is permitted merely because it is a correction of a party indication if the previous clan and the common ancestor are identical and appears to refer to the same organization.

[3] The representative of a clan shall be elected according to the rules or special practices of the clan, and if not, the head of the clan or the head of the family shall convene the male who has attained majority among the members of the clan and be elected by the resolution of the majority of the members present, according to the general custom. It is the general customs of our country that, unless the head of the clan or the head of the door has not been appointed in the clan and there is no rules or practice regarding the appointment of the head of the clan, the highest number of the members of the surviving clans who are aged, and they become the head of the clans or

1. On the first ground for appeal

It is not permissible to change the common ancestor of a clan in a lawsuit to which a clan is a party, or to change the nature of the plaintiff's clan that has already been confirmed to be a clan of its unique meaning to a similar organization that restricts the qualification of the members of the clan to residents of a specific region because it constitutes a voluntary change of the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da10866, May 10, 1994; 96Da32850, Nov. 26, 1996). However, even if the name of the clan is changed, if the common ancestor of the previous clan is identical with that of the previous clan and it seems that it actually leads to the same organization, it is merely permitted to correct the indication of the parties.

According to the records, the plaintiff's first instance court's decision that "the plaintiff's name was not the same as that of the plaintiff's clan's clan's clan's 1. The plaintiff's name was not the same as that of the plaintiff's clan's 1. The plaintiff's new clan's 1. The plaintiff's new clan's 1. The plaintiff's new clan's 1. The plaintiff's new clan's 1. The plaintiff's 1. the plaintiff's new clan's 1. the plaintiff's 9 clan's 1. The plaintiff's 9 clan's 9 clan's 1. The plaintiff's 7 clan's 1. The plaintiff's 9 clan's 1. The plaintiff's 1's 7 clan's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son was changed.

2. On the second ground for appeal

The representative of a clan shall be elected according to the rules or special practices of the clan, and if not, the head of the clan or the head of the Dong shall convene a general meeting of the members of the clan and elect them by the resolution of the majority of the members present, and if there is no head of the clan or the head of the door, and if there is no rules or practice regarding the appointment of the clan, it is the general custom of the Republic of Korea that the number of the members of the surviving clan who are the highest, and the number of the members of the clan who are the aged shall become the head of the clan or the head of the family (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da44986, Feb. 28, 1997).

It is invalid that the court below's decision that Defendant 1 had no right to call a general meeting of the plaintiff 1 as the representative of the above clan on August 17, 1997, which was convened by the order of 197 and elected the representative of the above clan 1. It is the resolution that the above clan was elected as the representative of the above clan 1, and the above clan 1, which had no right to call a general meeting of the above clan 1, but the above clan 1, which was convened by the above clan 1, was invalid. However, the above clan 1, which was recorded in the name of the above clan 1, for the reason of donation in the name of the defendant 1, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate representative because it was written in the name of the above clan 1, which was recorded in the name of the above clan 5, which was the representative of the above clan 1, the above clan 1, which was recorded in the name of the plaintiff 1, who was the representative of the above clan 1, and it cannot be viewed as a legitimate representative because the defendant's title 1 or 6, the above.

3. On the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that on June 12, 1921, the forest of this case was under the name of Nonparty 1 (Defendant 1's religious records) and 18, et al. on March 2, 1962, and that on March 2, 1962, some of the members of the clan who were the title trustee sold shares to others, and upon the efforts of Defendant 1, et al., the full recovery of the shares transferred to others and the registration of ownership transfer between August 4, 1981 and April 8, 1982, the registration of ownership transfer should be cancelled in the name of the clan of this case, and since the registration of ownership transfer and the registration of ownership transfer should be made under the name of the above plaintiff 1's religious records under the name of the title of the defendant 1's religious records, the registration of ownership transfer and the registration of ownership transfer should be made invalid in the name of the defendant 1's religious records under the name of the defendant 1's religious records.

As shown in the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, Nonparty 1, 18, and 18, who are the names of the forests and fields of this case, and the non-party 2 and the non-party 18, who are the titleholders of this case, are born out of the descendants by small waves, including all the members who do not reside in the religious field of this case, and the forest of this case where descendants and descendants are located, and the forest of this case was located in the name of the above 19 persons between the above 19 persons and the above 19 persons, it shall be deemed that the forest of this case was not private ownership of the clan nor ownership of the clan, and it is reasonable to view that the above 19 persons and the registered titleholders of this case, including those who do not live in the religious field of this case, were "the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who are the registered titleholders of this case," and therefore, it is reasonable to view that they were "the non-party 1 who resides in the name of the clan of this case," in the name of this case.

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)