손해배상(기)
1. The Plaintiff’s appeal and the appeal filed by Defendant B, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K are all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be individually counted.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment of the court of first instance is used or added as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts which are dismissed or added in the judgment of the first instance; and
(a) The phrase “ October 20, 2017” in Part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as “ November 17, 2017” in Part 8.
B. The addition of the part of the first instance judgment is to add the following 3) between the 9th 12 and 13th 13th son of the first instance judgment. 3) In addition, in a case where the members of the clan gather regularly at a certain place on a certain day each year in accordance with the rules or practices of the clan and handle the church affairs, it is not necessary to separately convene a clan general meeting (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da56315, May 11, 2007). If the clan has made a resolution on the management of the property of the clan by opening a general meeting regularly at the time of each year without any special convocation procedure, the above resolution shall be deemed valid as it is in accordance with the custom of the clan
(대법원 2011. 9. 8. 선고 2011다34743 판결 등 참조). 앞서 본 바와 같이, ① 대종중인 P 종회(이하 ‘이 사건 종중’이라고 한다)는 Q씨 시조 T의 10대손인 R를 공동선조로 하여 그 후손 중 19세 이상의 성년을 종원으로 하는 종중인데, 위 R는 U, V, W, S 등 4명의 아들을 두었고, 그에 따라 이 사건 종중은 규약에서 U, V, W, S의 각 후손들로 그 지파를 구성한다고 정한 사실, ② 전남 해남군 Y리에는 원고의 시조인 S 시제를 지내기 위한 제각(帝閣)이 마련되어 있고, 이 사건 종중의 시제와는 별도로 S 후손들이 주도하여 전남 해남에서 매년 음력 3월 3일에 S 시제를 봉행하여 온 사실이 인정되고, ③ 갑 제20, 31, 32, 33호증의 각 기재와 영상 및 변론...