[2] Method of managing and disposing of clan properties

1. In a case where the interpretation of the parties’ intentions expressed in a disposition document is at issue due to different opinions on the interpretation of the general rule of integration between large and small scule and small scule, such interpretation shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and background leading up to such agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intentions, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da5060, Dec. 12, 1997; 2002Da6753, Jun. 11, 2002).

On the other hand, since the property owned by a clan belongs to collective ownership of members of the clan, it shall be governed by the rules of the clan first, and since there is no rules of the clan concerning its management and disposition, it shall be decided by the resolution of the general meeting of the clan, even though it is a disposition of the clan property by the representative of the clan, it is null and void (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Da18656, Aug. 20, 1996; 200Da22881, Oct. 27, 200, etc.).

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted by the court below, the non-party 2 of this case's clan 10 and the non-party 2 of this case's clan 10 and the non-party 2 of this case's clan 10 and the non-party 2 of this case's clan's clan 10 and the non-party 2 of this case's clan's clan 10 and the non-party 2 of this case's clan 2's clan's clan 10 and the non-party 3 clan 9's clan 2's non-party 2's non-party 3 clan's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3 clan's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3 clan's non-party 9'.

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the above facts, Article 26 of the clan of this case only specifies the management of the property of the same clan, but does not mention the transfer of the property of each clan, and it seems that the property of the clan of this case was not changed to the name of the plaintiff clan until the non-party representative of the plaintiff clan was requested for the change of his executive members such as the chairperson and the secretary of the non-party of the clan of this case after the enactment of the clan of this case on March 3, 1992. In light of the fact that changing the name of the property of the clan of the clan of this case to the plaintiff clan of the clan of this case is a disposal of the property of the clan in substance, it is necessary to pass a resolution of the general meeting of the members of the clan, and it does not seem that the property of the clan of this case including the deposit of this case was directly reverted to the plaintiff or that of the clan of this case was not substituted for the resolution of the general meeting of members of the clan of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendants are liable for embezzlement of the deposits owned by the plaintiff's clan on the premise that the deposits of this case were reverted to the plaintiff's clan according to the clan rules of this case. The judgment below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of clan rules or in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the Defendants, the part against Defendants 1 and 3 and the part against Defendants 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5, each of the judgment below, which is the litigation acceptance by the deceased Defendant 2, shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the court of original instance for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)