(b) Method of convening a general meeting of a clan, in absence of the regulations or practices of the clan;

(b) In the absence of the rules or practice of a clan, it is sufficient for the convening authority to give notice to the adult male who is the cause of the clan and who is residing in Korea among the members eligible to attend a general meeting and whose location is clearly known and who can be notified in an appropriate manner.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

With respect to the defendant's defenses regarding the representative of the plaintiff clan, the court below found that the non-party 1, the representative of the plaintiff clan, was in a position inconsistent with the interests of the plaintiff clan by registering the change of the title of the real estate registered as the representative of the defendant clan in the plaintiff clan as the representative of the defendant clan, and the non-party 2, the vice-chairperson of the plaintiff clan, respectively, sent a notice of convening a general assembly to all the members of the plaintiff clan whose residence is known at the time of convening the general assembly, and if the representative of the clan fails to convene a general assembly or cannot expect convocation in the position of the non-party, the representative has the authority to convene the general assembly, and because the convocation procedure cannot be deemed unlawful merely because he did not directly send a notice of convening a general meeting to some members residing overseas, the above non-party 2's convocation is legitimate, the representative appointed as the chairperson of the general meeting, and the non-party 2, the vice-chairperson of the plaintiff clan, as the vice-chairperson of the lawsuit in this case, has also been cured.

According to the statement of No. 4 (Articles of Incorporation) and the result of the party's personal examination against Nonparty 1, among the evidence adopted by the court below, the plaintiff clan shall have one chairperson and one vice-chairperson to represent the clan and handle the acts of the chairperson and other affairs delegated by the clan at the time of the management of the clan or the application for registration, and the vice-chairperson shall assist the chairperson and represent the plaintiff clan in the public notice of the chairperson. Thus, in principle, the convening of the general meeting of the plaintiff clan may be carried out by Nonparty 1, the representative of the clan, and Nonparty 2, the vice-chairperson, shall have the authority to convene the general meeting only for the public notice of

Meanwhile, according to the evidence adopted by the court below, the above non-party 1, who was in office as the representative of the plaintiff clan, can be found to have returned to the United States around June 1984, when he was living in the meeting of the general meeting on January 14, 1989 and residing in the general meeting on September 1990. Thus, it is difficult for the non-party 1 to perform his duties as the chairperson of the plaintiff clan, and this circumstance constitutes a notification of the fact prescribed in the articles of association of the plaintiff clan. Therefore, it shall be deemed that the non-party 2, who was the vice-chairperson of the plaintiff clan, was entitled to convene the general meeting of the plaintiff clan. In addition, as recognized by the court below, the above non-party 1, who was in office as the chairperson of the plaintiff clan, denied his qualification as the non-party 1 and formed the defendant clan, and it is difficult to expect the non-party 2 to convene the general meeting for the purpose of returning the plaintiff's ownership to the plaintiff clan.

In the absence of the rules or practices of a clan, it is sufficient that the convening authority of the general meeting of the clan resides in Korea among the members of the clan who are eligible to attend the general meeting and notifies the adult male who is clearly notified of their location in an appropriate manner (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da2199 delivered on January 25, 197; Supreme Court Decision 81Da609 delivered on May 11, 1982). In light of the records, the convening procedure of the general meeting of the plaintiff clan shall be legitimate and it shall not be deemed that there is any error such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the registration of change of the indication of the registered titleholder and the registration of change of indication are consistent with the substantive relationship as a defendant clan for the real estate of this case, which is not erroneous in the rules of evidence, such as the just theory of lawsuit, etc.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho