[종중총회결의무효확인등청구의소][미간행]
In a case where Gap's clan changed the method of decision-making through the amendment of the rules by the representative system, and decided representatives by the recommendation of the sub-council; representatives recommended by the sub-council participated in the representative general meeting and resolved on the appointment of directors, etc.; Eul et al. asserted that Eul et al. had a practice of making a resolution on the appointment of the sub-council at the representative general meeting; and sought confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the general meeting, etc., the case affirming the judgment below that rejected Eul et al.'s assertion that the above practice was not established in light of all the circumstances, and that there is no defect in deeming that the resolution of the general meeting of delegates was invalid due to the lack of illegality in the procedure for recommending the sub-councils.
Articles 31, 75, and 105 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff 1 and two others (Law Firm ClarS, Attorneys Nam Young-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Jeonju-Jak-gun, Jeonyang-gun, Kim Jong-gun (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Gong Jong-dae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
See the list of the Intervenor joining the Defendant (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys private Gong-man et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na2037172 decided December 22, 2016
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal, including the part resulting from supplementary participation, are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Ground of appeal No. 1
The argument in this part of the grounds of appeal is that the amendment of the rules of the clan to the abolition of a clan general assembly is null and void against the essence of the clan, and it is a new argument in the final appeal, and therefore, it is not a legitimate ground of appeal against the judgment below
2. Ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 3
A. The lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the resolution of the General Meeting of Representatives of this case was null and void and that the resolution of the board of directors constituted based on that resolution was also null and void. For this reason, the following circumstances were revealed.
In 209, the Defendant changed the method of decision-making through the amendment of the rules of association on behalf of the members, and the Defendant intended to allocate 20 representatives who exercise the right to decision-making on behalf of the members of the sub-council by proportional distribution and by recommending the sub-council of the sub-council. The Plaintiffs asserted that there was a practice of adopting a resolution on the appointment of the representatives of the sub-council at the representative council. However, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiffs’ assertion is a case supporting the above practice, and it is difficult to see that there was a practice of normative power different from the method of determining representatives stipulated in the rules of association at the time when the system was newly established. The Defendant requested the recommendation of the newly appointed representatives of the sub-council of the sub-council of the sub-council of the instant case before the general meeting of the sub-council of the delegates of this case and the representatives recommended by the sub-council of the sub-council of this case participated
B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the procedures for appointing representatives by exceeding the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as
3. The plaintiffs' appeals are without merit, and all of them are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs including those resulting from the participation in the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
[Attachment] List of Intervenor joining the Defendant: Omitted
Justices Min You-sook (Presiding Justice)