손해배상(기)
1. All of the instant lawsuits against the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On December 1, 2003, Defendant B, a summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, served as the chairperson of the clan E on December 1, 2003 (hereinafter “the clan of this case”), retired on November 30, 208, and the rest of the Defendants were the enforcement register of the clan of this case at that time.
Around December 18, 2008, at the time when Defendant B held office as the president of the instant clan, he/she executed KRW 150 million out of the funds of the instant clan for the purpose of land sale consulting, and embezzled them, and was under criminal trial for the crime of embezzlement of the property of the instant clan from November 14, 2011 to October 29, 201, Defendant B arbitrarily disbursed KRW 37.47 million in total as the funds of the instant clan from November 14, 201 to October 29, 2012, and arbitrarily disbursed KRW 20,000,000 as the funds of the instant clan from September 9, 2012.
The Plaintiff, as an adviser of the clan of this case and a member of the family of this case, was delegated by 46 members of the clan to file the instant lawsuit, and thus, may seek damages against the Defendants.
Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay 150 million won and damages for delay to the clan of this case as damages, and the defendant B is liable to pay 37.67 million won and damages for delay to the clan of this case as damages.
2. Ex officio determination, a lawsuit concerning jointly owned property may be brought under the name of an unincorporated association by a resolution of a general meeting of members, or may be brought under the form of an indispensable co-litigation in the form of an essential co-litigation, even if the association is the representative of the association or a member of the general meeting of members;
Even if a lawsuit cannot be a party to the lawsuit, and this legal principle is the same as in the case of filing a lawsuit as an act of preserving collective ownership property (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Da44971 delivered on September 15, 2005), and in the case of this case, only the clan members of this case are the clan members.