종중회장 지위확인 등
1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part demanding confirmation of the president’s status and the part demanding the prohibition of interference with the president’s performance of duties shall be dismissed respectively.
2.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against CJ (hereinafter referred to as “CJ”) for confirmation of the status of the president of the Seoul Central District Court 2016Kahap509206 clan. On September 29, 2016, the said court rendered a favorable judgment by the Plaintiff that “The Plaintiff is in the position of the president of the DJP from November 12, 2015 (No. 1, October 2015) to September 30, 2018.”
(The above case is currently pending in the appellate court as Seoul High Court 2016Na2071769).
Attached Form
The recorded goods are kept in the office of a large association as the goods owned by the large association.
[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, and significant facts in this court (the plaintiff submitted the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Kahap508206, the defendant submitted the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2015Kahap20315, respectively as reference materials), the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. A lawsuit seeking active confirmation of the status of a representative against an individual of a clan who asserts that he/she is the representative of the clan in the part claiming confirmation of the status of the chairperson is not against the clan but against the individual of the clan, even if the judgment accepting such a claim is rendered, its validity cannot be deemed to affect the clan, and thus, it cannot be the most effective and appropriate method to resolve disputes between the parties surrounding the status of the representative, and therefore,
In this regard, the part of the lawsuit in this case's claim for confirmation of the status of president is unlawful, since it is against the defendant, not a major meeting (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da4104, Nov. 27, 1998).
B. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant not to interfere with the performance of the president’s duties, and stated in the purport of the claim only abstractly, “the Defendant shall not interfere with the performance of the president’s duties by the Plaintiff’s C&C.” As to this, the Defendant is the Plaintiff’s reply on February 19, 2016.