(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the above plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from the non-party 1, who is the representative of the defendant relatives' association, and there is no evidence to prove that the above non-party 1 had legitimate power of representation. The plaintiff's claim that the non-party 1 confirmed the above non-party 1's sale after the fact that the non-party 1 had no power of representation. The non-party 2, who is the representative of the defendant relatives' association at the time of August 1984 and the non-party 1 promised to purchase the land of this case from the non-party 1 to the plaintiff. The non-party 3's purchase of the land of this case by the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's right of this case's land.

(2) However, since the property of the clan belongs to the collective ownership of the members of the clan, its management and disposition shall be governed by the rules of the clan, and if the rules of the clan do not provide for separate provisions, the resolution of the general meeting of the members of the clan shall conform to the provisions of Articles 275(2) and 276(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, it is natural that ratification of the disposition of the clan is not different from the disposition of the clan, since it is not consistent with the rules or the resolution of the general meeting of members of the clan

However, according to the rules of the defendant clans Association (No. 23-4 and No. 25-4) adopted by the court below, the acquisition and disposition of the assets of the defendant clans Association as evidence is subject to the resolution of the board of directors (this point is also recognized by the court below). Since the board of directors is recognized to have passed a resolution with the attendance of a majority of the officers and the consent of a majority of the officers present at the board of directors, it is clear that the defendant clans representative may not have the effect of ratification even if the defendant clans representative promised to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership to the plaintiff or delivered the registration required documents, unless the board of directors made a resolution to legitimately dispose of the real estate of this case or to confirm the disposal of

Therefore, examining whether there was a resolution of the board of directors as above, the evidence Nos. 7-2 employed by the court below was written on Jan. 1, 1985 regarding the real estate of this case, stating the contents that the non-party 4 and the non-party 11 members gather at the office of the defendant relatives' association and decided the disposition. In addition, according to the evidence Nos. 19-6 (the non-party 5 statement adopted by the court below, the non-party 5 did not lawfully hold a closed meeting as stated in the above statement Nos. 19-1, 12 and 13, and the non-party 1's statement and the non-party 4 and the non-party 6's statement that the non-party 6's statement and the non-party 6's statement were not recorded in the non-party 8's meeting, and the non-party 6's statement and the non-party 4 and the non-party 6's statement were not recorded in the above statement.

(3) In addition, the court below held that the defendant impliedly ratified the disposition of the real estate in this case against the plaintiff by purchasing 1,230 square meters from the non-party 3 on November 27, 1982 with the proceeds of selling the real estate in this case to the plaintiff and purchasing it from the non-party 3 ( Address 1 omitted) and completing the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant's clan clan. However, there is no evidence to prove that the registration of ownership transfer has been made under the name of the defendant's clan clan-friendly association with respect to the above 1,230 square meters, and rather, there is no evidence to prove that the registration of ownership transfer has been made under the name of the non-party 13-6 (Register of No. 13-6) and the evidence No. 19-11 (Non-party 6 Examination of Evidence), the above 12 (Non-party 4 Examination of Evidence), and 13 (Non-party 8).

(4) Ultimately, among the judgment of the court below, the part that judged that the defendant clan clan confirmed the sale of the land of this case by Nonparty 1 is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to ratification of the disposition of clan properties and the judgment of evidence in violation of the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning

2. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-seok (Presiding Justice)