2. C

According to the records, Article 9 of the clan resolution, which is the clan of the plaintiff clan, provides that the representative of the clan, upon the request of a majority of the representatives, shall convene an extraordinary general meeting. The defendants asserted that the resolution is null and void because the resolution was made without the request of a majority of the representatives, who are the requirements for convening an extraordinary general meeting, from April 21, 2013 and February 16, 2014, which are the requirements for convening an extraordinary general meeting under the above provision. However, the court below did not make any decision on the above argument. The clan rules have no effect (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da30566, Oct. 10, 208; 2005Da305666, Sept. 9, 208). If there is no request of a majority of representatives for convening an extraordinary general meeting as alleged by the defendants, each extraordinary general meeting does not have the effect of convening the general meeting as a representative of the plaintiff clan, in violation of the requirements for convening an extraordinary general meeting.

The lower court did not render a judgment as to the Defendants’ assertion even though each extraordinary general meeting satisfies the requirements for convening a meeting prescribed in the clan resolution, which affected the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the impact of the defect in the convening procedure on the effects of the clans resolution, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.