청구이의
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3.Paragraph 1 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance.
The reason why the court should explain this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the defendant's additional arguments in the court of first instance. Thus, this is citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The defendant asserts that, in convening a convocation notice to the members of the clan on April 14, 2013 in order to hold the general meeting of the clan of this case as of April 14, 2013 according to the conciliation of this case, the defendant argues that the above suspension condition should be deemed fulfilled pursuant to Article 150 (1) of the Civil Act, since, although the defendant agreed to send a muster notice to 44 members of the clan in Seoul, and that, although the members of the clan of Gwangju, 38 members of the clan agreed to send a muster notice to the members of the clan of this case, E and the plaintiff did not agree to give a muster notice to the members of the clan of Seoul, thereby obstructing the fulfillment of the conditions such as holding
If a party who is at a disadvantage due to the fulfillment of a condition interferes with the fulfillment of such condition against the good faith and trust, the other party may assert that the condition has been fulfilled.
However, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that E has to send a notice of convening a general meeting to the members of the Seoul Family as asserted by the defendant, only with each statement (including the number of pages), Nos. 150 (1), 5, 6, and 9 of the Civil Code, and Nos. 150 (1), 5, 6, and 9 of the Civil Code). Even if such fact is acknowledged, there is no evidence to support the fact that the plaintiff, who is the party at disadvantage due to the fulfillment of the above suspension condition, did not
Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff interfered with the fulfillment of the above suspension condition against the good faith and good faith is without merit.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.