The part of the subrogation claim on the amount equivalent to the remuneration shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The court below held that the part concerning the subrogation claim regarding the amount equivalent to the plaintiffs' remuneration in the lawsuit of this case is a vicarious exercise of part of the claims for operating expenses against the defendant of the representative meeting of this case, which is a non-corporate body, and that the operating rules of this case should go through a resolution of the general meeting of the representative meeting of this case as to the lawsuit of this case, since there is no specific provision as to the case where the representative meeting of this case files a lawsuit concerning the property jointly owned by the representative meeting of this case, the part concerning the subrogation claim concerning the amount equivalent to the plaintiffs' remuneration

However, it is difficult to accept such judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

In a lawsuit concerning property jointly owned by a non-corporate group, barring any special circumstance, such as otherwise stipulated in the articles of incorporation, a resolution of a general meeting is required (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da97044, Jul. 28, 2011). However, this is an internal procedure necessary for decision-making and special authorization of a non-corporate group when the representative of a non-corporate group files a lawsuit concerning property jointly owned in the name of a non-corporate group.

If a debtor does not exercise his/her right of subrogation on his/her own, the creditor is entitled to exercise his/her right in subrogation of the debtor in order to preserve the debtor's claim against the debtor, and it does not require the consent of the debtor. Therefore, in cases where a non-corporate group does not exercise its right to collective property, and the creditor of a non-corporate group exercises the right to collective property based on the creditor's subrogation right, it is not necessary to go through internal decision-making procedures such as a resolution of a general meeting

The judgment below

The reasons and records.