명의신탁해지에 의한 소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s citing this case is the same as that of the first instance judgment, except for the Plaintiff’s additional determination as to the assertion made at the trial. Thus, the court citing this case as it is under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. After the judgment of the court of first instance on September 22, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) sent to 262 members of the Plaintiff clan a notice for holding an extraordinary session on October 3, 2016; and (b) notified them of holding an extraordinary session on October 3, 2016; (c) on October 3, 2016, 98 members attended the meeting and made a resolution for ratification of the instant lawsuit at the duly held clan general meeting; and (d) accordingly, the instant lawsuit was retroactively effective.
According to the evidence No. 31-1, the notice of convening an extraordinary general meeting issued by the Plaintiff on September 22, 2016 was issued in the name of "AT".
In order to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion, the fact that the above AT was the representative duly elected through a clan general meeting is recognized. Therefore, it should be proven that the clan general meeting of November 9, 2013 asserted that there was a resolution to elect AT as the representative of the Plaintiff through legitimate procedures.
However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff's testimony of Gap evidence 27 No. 1 to 4 and witness BC alone is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff made a notification individually to all family members of the same clan who can be notified by the family council because the scope of the members who were notified by the family council was determined by the family council on November 9, 2013 while holding the family council on November 9, 2013 and the whereabouts of the members were clearly residing in Korea.
Ultimately, the general assembly of the clan of November 9, 2013, held without due process, and the validity of the resolution cannot be recognized. As such, AT cannot be deemed a legitimate representative of the plaintiff.
AT has the authority to legally call a notice from the plaintiff's head of the household or his/her head of the household.