분배금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following determination as to the assertion added or supplemented by the defendant in the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. The defendant asserts that there is no benefit to confirm the invalidity of each of the instant resolutions, since K, the plaintiff's 's 's 's 's 's 's '', received assets on behalf of the plaintiffs.
On the other hand, in a lawsuit for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a confirmation judgment in order to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status and the apprehension and danger (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da67115, Sept. 8, 201). Only with the statement of each letter (No. 2009Da67115, Sept. 8, 201) unilaterally prepared by K, it cannot be deemed that K represented the Plaintiffs of a final cause, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, and it cannot be deemed that the payment to the family representative was made to the family members.
In addition, since the plaintiffs are entitled to acquire rights to clans by each resolution of this case concerning the distribution of clan properties as the members of the defendant, the plaintiffs are entitled to confirm the invalidity of each resolution of this case, so the above argument of the defendant is without merit.
Next, in light of the fact that the defendant paid shares to K representing the plaintiffs' family through the resolution of the temporary middle-class general meeting on February 21, 2016, and that the family members including the plaintiffs who were referred to by the plaintiffs agree not to raise any objection, the defendant argued that each of the above resolutions in this case cannot be deemed significantly unfair for the plaintiffs, and as seen above, the legal effect of the above distribution cannot be deemed to affect the plaintiffs, and as a result, the plaintiffs who are the final grounds for the decision are final.