[2] In a case where the existence of the power of representation of a non-corporate association representative is doubtful, whether the court should investigate it ex officio (affirmative), and whether the lawsuit brought by a non-corporate association without a resolution of a general meeting of members is legitimate (negative in principle)

1. As to Plaintiff 1’s ground of appeal

Even when considering the legislative purport, details, etc. of the Animal Protection Act with the aim of promoting the protection, safety, and welfare of animals and contributing to the cultivation of people’s sentiments, such as respect for the life of animals, there is no provision recognizing the capacity of animals to enjoy rights against animals under the Civil Act or any other Act, and no customary law recognizing such provision exists, the animal itself cannot be deemed as the subject of the claim for consolation money. Moreover, even if the animal is so-called companion animal, such as pets, it cannot be viewed differently

Recognizing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the lower court, citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, found the Defendant’s determination of the consolation money of Plaintiff 1, instead of rejecting the part of the claim for consolation money of 2 Mari-ri itself, which was a euthanash’s death, instead of rejecting the part of the claim for consolation money of Plaintiff 1.

Such measures by the court below are justified, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on animal rights.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s organic dog for love (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s similar owner”)

In a case where a non-corporate company is a party, whether a representative has legitimate power of representation is related to the requirements for a lawsuit, and thus, the court shall investigate it ex officio in a case where the existence of the representative's power of representation is doubtful. In a case where a non-corporate company files a lawsuit concerning property jointly owned by the non-corporate company, barring special circumstances, such as the existence of other provisions in its articles of incorporation, the resolution of a general meeting of partners should be passed, so a lawsuit filed in its name without such resolution of general meeting of partners is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da97044, Jul. 28, 2011).

In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below held that the Plaintiff’s similar principle’s articles of incorporation is unlawful, on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Nonparty, who asserted as the representative of the Plaintiff similar principle, was appointed as the representative of the Plaintiff similar principle through the above procedure, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Nonparty had passed a resolution of the general meeting prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit concerning the property owned by the Plaintiff similar owner.

The judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the aforementioned legal principles. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the representative nature of non-corporate association or the requirements

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant are assessed against the plaintiff 1, and the costs of appeal between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant are assessed against the non-party who filed the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)