2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

A. It is confirmed that the resolution of the defendant clan to appoint non-party 1 as the chairperson of the clan on January 29, 2001 is null and void.

B. As indicated in the attached list of disciplinary actions, the Defendant’s first disposition to suspend the qualification against Plaintiffs 17, 18, and 19, the first disposition to suspend the qualification against Plaintiffs 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, and the second disposition to suspend the qualification, and the second disposition to suspend the qualification, such as the Plaintiff 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 11, are all invalidated.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

A. Status of the parties

(1) The defendant Placheon Sacheon Sacheon Sacheon Sacheon Sacheon Sacheons (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants of the defendant") is a 14-year-old member of the Sacheon Sacheon Sacheon Sacheon Sacheon Sacheon Sacheon Sacheons (S Ba), and is organized by his descendants for the purpose of gathering the tomb of the deceased pets of his descendants from the beginning day of the city in the south of the city in which her descendants left the tomb and raising their friendship for the protection of the graves, the saccins and the descendants, and all the plaintiffs are the members of the defendant's clan.

(2) A clan consisting of the lower clans of the defendant clan which set up the deceased and the deceased and the deceased and the deceased and the clan consisting of the family members of the clan, the clan of the clan, the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the deceased and of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the deceased.

(3) On the other hand, around January 1995, Nonparty 1 was elected as the sixth president of the defendant clan, and he was enlisted as the seventh president around January 1998.

B. Rules of the defendant clan

The rules of the defendant clan were amended on three occasions after the enactment of September 28, 1975, and the rules of the defendant clan (No. 1) amended on May 16, 1995 are as follows.

(1) The president shall be elected at the general meeting, and the term of office shall be three years, and where the president is unable to hold the general meeting due to unavoidable circumstances when his term of office expires, his term of office shall be extended until the next general meeting (Articles 5, 6, and 10(2)).

(2) The convening of an ordinary general meeting and an extraordinary general meeting shall be notified to all its members one week, and the general meeting and the extraordinary general meeting shall be held by at least 60 members, and shall be decided with the consent of at least a majority of the members present (Articles 14, 17, and 19).

(3) A member who has inflicted damage on a clan due to an act committed by the non-unlawful act among the members of the clan or damaged the reputation of the clan shall compensate for it and shall be punished by a resolution of the board of directors and reported to the general meeting (Article 26).

C. Operational status of Defendant clans

(1) Nonparty 1, who is appointed as the president of the Defendant clan, has invested KRW 154,214,00 among the land expropriation compensation of KRW 537,541,500, which was received by eight parcels of land, such as 101-3, which are owned by the Defendant clan, as the land expropriation compensation was incorporated into the site for the Defendant’s outer circular road, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty 1’s representative on June 4, 199, regardless of the opposition of Nonparty 1’s donation from the Defendant on June 4, 199, the land expropriation compensation of KRW 154,214,00 among the land expropriation compensation of KRW 537,50,00.

(2) In addition, around June 2001, Nonparty 1 newly constructed the same 2m2 with the funds of the Defendant clan, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant clan on September 7, 2001, each of the above 3,304m2 (the above land was divided into 103m2 and 1193m2, 103m2, 103-7m2, 103-7m2, 103-8m2, 103m2, and 103m2, and 103m2, etc. on the ground of the same 103m2 and 103m2 of the same m2, which had no relationship with the Defendant clan, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 7, 2001, after completing the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Lee Jae-dong and 103-8m2m2, respectively.

(3) Accordingly, on May 10, 200, 50 members, including Plaintiff 1, etc., who were the members of the Defendant clan organized an emergency countermeasure committee on the name of Nonparty 1’s correction of the crossing and preservation of the clan’s property. On January 10, 2001, Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3 conspired with the Seoul Central Police Station on the charge that he embezzled KRW 154,214,00 of the compensation for the expropriation of the clan’s land, but the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office did not impose a non-prosecution disposition on Nonparty 1, etc. on the ground that there was no suspicion against Nonparty 1, etc. on June 25, 2001.

(d) The first disposition to suspend the qualification and resolution to appoint the representative of January 29, 2001.

(1) On March 27, 199, the clan of the clan that is subordinate to the defendant clan notified the 26 members of the clan that he made a statement or testimony unfavorable to the above clan or raised an objection against the plaintiff 14 in the course of the lawsuit for claiming the registration of ownership transfer, which is based on the title trust that the above clan raised against the plaintiff 14, or that he made a disposition of suspending the qualification of the members of the clan.

(2) On March 30, 199, the defendant clan held an executive officer and a board of directors, and made a resolution on March 30, 1999 to suspend the qualification of 26 members including the above plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "a disposition of suspension of qualification") on the ground that the defendant clan, who is in the upper clan of the separate clan, must take the same disciplinary action as the disciplinary action taken by the separate clan in order to prevent any sacrificing and unsying in the future in accordance with the above notification of the clan, without providing the members of the separate clans who were subject to disciplinary action or not provided a vindication or explanation for himself or herself, and notified the above facts to the plaintiffs including the above plaintiffs on August 1, 208, pursuant to Article 26 of the clan Regulations, on the ground that the defendant clan must take the same disciplinary action as the disciplinary action taken by the separate clans.

(3) On the other hand, on January 29, 2001, the defendant clan held a clan general meeting and passed a resolution to again appoint Nonparty 1 for whom the term of office has expired as the representative of the defendant clan. In holding the above clan general meeting, the defendant clan did not notify 26 members who were subject to the first suspension of qualification due to the first suspension of qualification for the 26 members, including the plaintiff 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, on the ground that the qualification was suspended due to the first suspension of qualification for the 1st member, and 3 to 6 members, some of the members of the clan who were subject to the first suspension of qualification, including Nonparty 4, 5, 6, were to participate in the clan general meeting with the knowledge of the fact of holding the clan general meeting, but limited the attendance, right to speak, voting right, and so on.

(d) Secondary disposition of suspension of qualification and suspension of qualifications and provisional disposition; and

On the other hand, when the accusation case of embezzlement against the non-party 1 et al. brought by the plaintiff 1 et al. against the non-party 1 was handled without suspicion by the investigative agency on June 25, 2001, the defendant held a provisional directors' meeting on September 14, 2001 and stated that "50 persons, such as the plaintiff 1 et al., accused the representative of the clan, etc. of the non-indicted 50 on the ground that he constituted an emergency countermeasure committee and embezzled compensation for the expropriation of the clan land at the executive branch of the defendant clan, but it was revealed that there was no suspicion of the investigation result, etc., which caused damage to the clan, or damaged the reputation of the clan," pursuant to Article 26 of the clan Regulations, the suspension of qualifications or suspension of qualifications for the above defendant clan 1,2,3,4,5,9, and 11 were 0 years or less including the defendant's right to attend various meetings, voting rights, voting rights, election rights (hereinafter the second suspension of qualifications for the plaintiff 12,13 years or less.

[Evidence Evidence: Evidence No. 2-1 to 6, evidence No. 3-1, 2, 3, evidence No. 4, evidence No. 5-1, A-2, evidence No. 7-2, evidence No. 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 13, evidence No. 14-1 through 20, evidence No. 15, evidence No. 1, 2, 2, 7, evidence No. 3-1, 8, 9-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 8, 2, Eul evidence No. 12, 13, 14, 27, each statement of evidence No. 5-1, 7, 7, 11, and 12, and each statement of evidence No. 7, the witness of the court of the first instance, and the purport of the testimony and statement of the non-party witness testimony at the court of all (excluding the testimony at the court of all the parties)

2. Determination on the claim for confirmation of invalidity of a disciplinary action (excluding plaintiff 6, 7, 8, 10)

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

(A) Each disciplinary action in the separate list of disciplinary actions taken by the defendant clan (hereinafter referred to as "each disciplinary action in this case") is null and void since it does not constitute a disciplinary action as stipulated in Article 26 of the clan Regulations, and even if Article 26 of the Family Rules plans to suspend the qualification of the members of the clan, the suspension of qualification which deprives the plaintiffs of their status or status for a long time as the members of the clan does not differ from the so-called "members of the clan" and thus, the above rules are null and void because they are contrary to

(B) In addition, although the grounds for disciplinary action of this case do not constitute justifiable grounds for disciplinary action of Article 26 of the clan such as causing damage to the defendant's clan or impairing the honor of the defendant's clan, the disciplinary action of this case is null and void since it did not provide specific grounds for disciplinary action to the above plaintiffs without giving them an opportunity to explain or defend themselves.

(2) Defendant clan's assertion

(A) Unlike the kind of deprivation of qualification as a member permanently, each of the instant disciplinary actions is valid as it is based on Article 26 of the clan Regulations because it temporarily limits only the right to attend, speak, voting rights, voting rights, election rights, eligibility for election, etc. of a clan general meeting.

(B) Furthermore, Plaintiff 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, who is the person subject to the first suspension of qualification, made a statement or testimony unfavorable to the above clan, or made a statement or testimony unfavorable to the clan in the course of the lawsuit demanding the registration of ownership transfer, which is based on the title trust that was brought by the clan against Plaintiff 14 against the plaintiff 14, or made a disposition suspending his qualification by raising an objection as to the institution of the above clan, and the above acts committed by the above plaintiffs to the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the clan of the same clan of the same clan of the same clan of the same clan of the same clan of the same clan of the same clan

(C) In addition, although the plaintiff 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, who are the persons subject to the second disposition of suspension of qualification and suspension of qualification, who are the persons subject to the second disposition of suspension of qualification and suspension of qualification, have lawfully handled their duties in accordance with the practices and resolutions of the defendant clan, the non-party 1, who is the chairperson of the defendant clan, made a false assertion as if he were arbitrarily useful to the defendant clans property, and made an action such as seeking an emergency countermeasure committee and filing a criminal complaint against the officers of the non-party 1 and the defendant clan

B. Determination

(1) Whether each of the instant dispositions can be imposed on the grounds of Article 26 of the clan Regulations

Unlike the general non-corporate group, a clan within its unique meaning does not require a special organization as a naturally occurring group of a clan for the purpose of protecting the graves of the common ancestor and promoting friendship among the members of the same clan, and any adult male among the descendants of the common ancestor naturally becomes its members and part of its members cannot be arbitrarily excluded from its members. In order to limit basic rights as a member of the clan in order to limit some of its members, such as attending and speaking at the general meeting of the clan, voting rights, voting rights, voting rights, election rights, and election rights, as the disciplinary action of this case, in light of the purpose and nature of the establishment of the clan of this case, it shall be limited to cases where the types and contents of such disciplinary action are clearly specified in the clan regulations or where such clan practices exist, and it shall be limited to a reasonable and minimum extent necessary in restricting their rights.

However, Article 26 of the Rules of the defendant clan provides that "a member who causes damage to a clan or defames the reputation of a clan due to an unlawful act committed by a member of the clan shall compensate for it, and shall report it to the general meeting after the resolution of the board of directors," and Article 26 of the Rules does not provide any provision concerning the specific kind or content of the disciplinary action, and therefore, Article 26 of the Rules does not constitute a ground provision for each disciplinary action of this case, and otherwise, unless there is any evidence to prove that there is a custom or practice that permits the suspension of qualification of the member of the clan, such as each disciplinary action of this case, the disciplinary action of this case shall be null and void as it has

In addition, each of the instant disciplinary actions is deprived of all the rights to participate in the decision-making of a clan as a member for a considerable period of three to fifteen years from the above plaintiffs (in particular, with respect to plaintiffs 1 (15), 3 (10), 12 (15), 13 (15), and 17 (10), etc. who are older than the end of 60 to the end of 80), who lose their status as a member of a clan permanently because it is difficult to expect recovery of the status as a member of a clan in fact, and it seems that there is no so-called deprivation of their status as member of a clan permanently because it is difficult to expect recovery of the status as a member of a clan before the birth, as well as the fundamental right to participate in the decision-making of a clan as a member of a clan, which is in essence against the purpose and essence of the clan, and therefore it is impossible to recognize its effect.

(2) Whether there exists a ground for the first suspension of qualification

In full view of the purport of the arguments in the above 1, 2, and 9-1, 20-1, 1, 2, and 1-2 of the above 9-1 and 21-3 to 4 of the 1994, the clan members of the defendant clan 14 filed a lawsuit for the registration of ownership transfer against the plaintiff 14 around 1994 for the same reason that the above 19-1, 2, and 9-1 of the 19-2 of the 19-2 of the 19-2 of the 19-1 of the 19-2 of the 19-2 of the 19-1 of the 19-2 of the 19-2 of the 19-2 of the 19-2 of the 19-2 of the 19-2 of the 1-1 of the 1-3-1 of the 1-3 of the 1-3-3 of the 1-3 of the 1-14-2 of the 1-2 of the 1-3-4-3 of the 14.

In light of the above facts, it seems that: (a) Plaintiff 14 refused to return the property of the clan, and (b) Plaintiff 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 took the attitude of Plaintiff 14 as to the filing of the lawsuit by the above clan; (c) it was not appropriate for the member of the clan of the clan; (d) however, even though the religious clan is the subordinate members of the defendant clan, each of the above clan is a clan with a separate entity different from its members; and (e) the above acts of the above plaintiffs were the grounds for the separate establishment of the clan members and the above plaintiffs, which were the grounds for the disciplinary action immediately in relation to the defendant clan; and (e) there is no evidence to deem that the above plaintiffs committed unlawful acts that constitute the grounds for the disciplinary action against the above plaintiffs, and therefore, it does not constitute the grounds for the suspension of qualification as to the above plaintiffs, and therefore, it does not constitute the grounds for the disciplinary action.

(3) Whether there exist grounds for the second suspension of qualification and suspension of qualification

갑 제3호증의 1 내지 3, 을 제9호증의 1, 2, 을 제16호증, 을 제17호증, 을 제18호증, 을 제23호증의 1의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 앞에서 본 바와 같이 풍천임씨 시조공의 14세손인 죽애공을 중시조로 하는 피고 종중의 아래에는 죽애공의 장자 찰방공 숭노를 중시조로 하는 찰방공파 종중과 차자 시정공 영노를 중시조로 하는 시정공파 종중이 있고, 시종공파 종중 아래에는 시정공의 아들들을 중시조로 하는 당호공파 종중, 정랑공파 종중, 별제공파 종중이 있었는데, 찰방공파 종중은 찰방공의 사망 이후 독자로 계승되다가 18대에 이르러 절손되어 정랑공의 손자인 량(량)을 양자로 입양하게 되었고, 이러한 인연으로 그 이후 찰방공파 종중과 정랑공파 종중은 피고 종중의 분묘수호와 봉제사 등을 주도적으로 함께 하여 온 사실, 찰방공파와 정랑공파의 후손들은 1987. 9. 21. 피고 종중의 산하에 피고 풍천임씨 18세손인 찰방공파 량(량)과 정랑공파 중(중), 당(당)의 후손들을 구성원으로 하고, 피고 종중의 위토 및 종중재산을 관리하고 상호 친목도모 등을 목적으로 하는 ‘풍천임씨 중자양자당자 삼파위토건물관리위원회’라는 명칭(1999. 3. 30.경 ‘풍천임씨 찰방정랑공파 종회’로 그 명칭이 변경되었다)의 위토관리위원회를 조직한 후 성문화된 규약을 만들어 사회적인 활동을 해 왔으며, 피고 종중은 1987. 11. 20. 이사회를 개최하여 위 위토관리위원회의 구성 및 활동을 승인한 사실, 이후 피고 종중 소유의 토지 중 하남시 초일동 101-3 등 8필지의 토지가 서울외곽순환도로의 부지로 편입되어 토지수용보상금 537,541,500원을 받게 되자, 피고 종중은 1999. 3. 30. 이사회를 개최하여 위 토지수용보상금으로 피고 종중 소유의 하남시 초일동 56 대지상의 기존 묘막을 재축하기로 결의하였고, 당시 이사회에서는 피고 종중의 회장이자 위 풍천임씨 찰방정랑공파 종회의 회장을 겸임하고 있던 소외 1의 제안에 따라 재축하는 묘막은 피고 종중의 위토를 종전부터 관리하여 오던 풍천임씨 찰방정랑공파 종회 명의로 등기하자는 내용이 논의된 사실(위 하남시 초일동 토지위에는 찰방공 및 정랑공과 그 후손들의 산소가 있고, 위토관리위원회가 관리하여 왔다는 것이 그 근거로 제시되었다) 등을 각 인정할 수 있고, 나아가 소외 1은 1999. 6. 4. 토지수용보상금 중 154,214,000원을 투입하여 기존 묘막을 재축한 후 당호공파 및 별제공파 종원들의 반대에도 불구하고 풍천임씨 찰방정랑공파 종회 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마쳤고, 2001. 6.경 피고 종중과는 아무런 관계도 없는 소외 이효재, 임수혁 명의로 건축허가를 받아 피고 종중 소유의 하남시 초일동 103 전 3,304㎡ 지상에 피고 종중의 자금으로 계(계)축사 2동을 신축하여 위 이효재, 임수혁 명의로 각 소유권보존등기를 마친 다음 2001. 9. 7. 다시 위 풍천임씨 찰방정랑공파 종회 명의로 각 소유권이전등기를 마친 사실, 이에 원고 1 등 종원 50 여명은 2000. 5. 10. 소외 1의 횡포를 시정하고 종중재산을 보전한다는 명분으로 비상대책위원회를 조직하였고, 2001. 1. 10. 종원 40여명의 연명으로 서울 중부경찰서에 피고 종중의 회장 소외 1, 상무이사 소외 2, 총무부장 소외 3이 공모하여 종중 토지의 수용보상금 154,214,000원을 횡령하였다는 혐의로 고발하였으나, 서울지방검찰청은 2001. 6. 25. 소외 1 등에 대하여 혐의가 없다는 이유로 불기소처분을 하였으며, 피고 중중은 원고 1 등이 소외 1 등을 상대로 제기한 업무상 횡령죄의 고소사건이 무혐의로 처리되자, 2001. 9. 14. 임시이사회를 개최하여 “원고 1 등 50명은 비상대책위원회를 구성하고 피고 종중의 집행부에서 종중 토지의 수용보상금을 횡령하였다는 이유로 종중 대표자 회장 등을 수사기관에 고발하였으나 수사결과 혐의가 없다는 것으로 드러나는 등 부정불미한 행위로 종중에 대하여 피해를 끼치거나 명예를 오손한 종인에 해당한다”는 이유로 종중규약 제26조에 근거하여 원고 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 등에게 별지 징계처분 내역 기재와 같은 내용의 2차 자격정지처분 또는 자격정지가산처분을 한 사실은 앞에서 인정한 바와 같다.

In light of the above facts, in order to manage the clan and the clan property of the defendant clan, the clan clan shall be deemed to be a non-corporate body similar to the defendant clan which is organized by only the members of the clan from among the members of the defendant clan. However, although its members are limited to only the members of the clan which is part of the defendant clan, the clan shall be the members of the clan, although the clan was constructed as compensation for the land expropriation of the defendant clan, it shall be the land expropriation of the defendant clan, and so there is no suspicion of non-party 1's non-party 1's acts against the defendant's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's properties.

(4) Sub-determination

Therefore, each of the disciplinary actions in this case shall be deemed to be null and void since all of the disciplinary actions in this case were taken without any grounds for the clan rules or clan practices and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for disciplinary action.

3. Determination as to the claim for nullification of the resolution of the clan General Meeting on January 29, 2001

A. Determination on this safety defense

The resolution of the clan General Meeting of January 29, 2001, which the plaintiffs elected Nonparty 1 as the chairperson of the defendant clan, was held without a notification for the first suspension of qualification to the members of the 26 members who were subject to the first suspension of qualification in holding the above general meeting. Accordingly, the resolution of the clan General Meeting of January 29, 2001, asserting that the convocation of the resolution of the clan General Meeting of January 29, 2001, is null and void because there are significant defects in the convening procedure, and accordingly, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's claim for nullification of the resolution of the general meeting of January 29, 2001

(1) First of all, the defendant's lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a resolution of appointment of the representative of a clan is the plaintiff because only the person who has asserted that he/she is the legitimate representative of the clan or has the authority to act for the representative of the clan as the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiffs who do not fall under this ground are not standing to sue to seek confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the general meeting of the clan on January 29, 2001. Thus, if the plaintiff is a member of the clan who has the interest of confirmation because the lawsuit seeking confirmation is ordinary confirmation litigation, anyone has the standing to act as the plaintiff, and only the person who has argued that he/she is the representative of the clan or who has the authority to act for the representative of the clan has the standing to sue, the above argument by

(2) Next, the defendant was selected and appointed as the president of the defendant clan on January 298 by the resolution of the general meeting on January 29, 2001. Even if the resolution of the general meeting of January 29, 2001, which the defendant clan appointed non-party 1 as the representative, as the plaintiffs' assertion, is null and void, the non-party 1 is extended the term until the appointment of the president is made pursuant to Article 10 (2) of the clan, and the status as the representative is no longer changed. Thus, according to the Eul evidence No. 1, the plaintiffs asserted that there is no interest in legal action to seek confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the general meeting of January 29, 2001, since Article 10 (2) of the above clan does not legally require confirmation of non-party 1's successor's status until the next general meeting is held. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's appointment of non-party 1 is invalid until the next general meeting of 201.

(3) Lastly, the defendant is found to have been elected as the chairperson of the above clan 1 on January 29, 2001. The term of office expires as of January 29, 2004. The defendant's clan 2 decided to hold a clan general meeting on January 30, 204 and to elect non-party 1 again as the chairperson. Thus, it is merely legitimate to seek confirmation of the past legal relations or legal relations of the resolution of the clan general meeting on January 29, 2001. Thus, the defendant's claim for confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the above clan 201 is not proper, since the non-party 1 did not have the position of officer since the non-party 2 was first selected as the chairperson of the above clan 30 and the non-party 2 did not seek confirmation of the appointment of non-party 1 as the chairperson of the above clan 200 after the expiration of the term of office or resignation of the non-party 1's general meeting. It is also deemed that there are no new 10-party 2's legal interests or nullification.

B. Judgment on the merits

As recognized earlier, the defendant clan did not give notice of convening the first time to the members of the 26th clan who was subject to the suspension of qualification for the first time on January 29, 2001, on the ground that the first time was suspended due to the suspension of qualification for the members of the clan. Furthermore, the 3-4 members including the 4, 5, 6, and 3-4 of the 26 members who were subject to the first suspension of qualification were to participate in the first time of the clan general meeting with the knowledge of the fact that the qualification was suspended as the members of the clan, but tried to participate in the clan general meeting, but the qualification as the members was suspended. Accordingly, as seen above, the first suspension of qualification was imposed without any significant grounds for the rules of the clan or the clan practice, and as such, it does not fall under the grounds for disciplinary action or becomes null and void, the notification of convening the general meeting and the notification of convening the above 10-6 members who were subject to the first suspension of qualification is null and void.

In regard to this, the defendant argued that 26 members who were subject to the first suspension of qualification did not notify 26 members of the convening general meeting of the clan on January 29, 2001, but the above 26 members were aware of the fact that the above clan general meeting was held in advance by mutual communication. However, among the above 26 members, there is no evidence to deem that the members who were subject to the first suspension of qualification except for 3 to 4 members, such as 4, 5, 6, etc. who were attending the said clan general meeting of January 29, 201, were aware in advance of the date and place of the clan general meeting of January 29, 2001, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

In addition, as long as only 2-3 members among 260 members present at the clan general meeting of January 29, 2001, and only 2-6 members elected Nonparty 1 as the president with the consent of all the remaining members, even if all the members were subject to the first suspension of qualification, they could not have any influence on the result of the first suspension of qualification, so it cannot be said that the resolution of the above clan general meeting of this clan which elected Nonparty 1 as the president cannot be deemed null and void merely because 26 members who were subject to the first suspension of qualification were deprived of the opportunity to participate in the resolution of the above clan general meeting. However, the clan general meeting of this clan did not give each member the opportunity to participate in the debate and resolution of the clan general meeting, and therefore, the resolution of the clan general meeting of this clan held without a notice of convening some members cannot be recognized regardless of the result of voting. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

If so, the judgment of the court of first instance on the plaintiffs 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of the defendant clan as shown in the separate sheet and the disposition of the first suspension of qualification and the second suspension of qualification as to the plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 11, and the second disposition of the second suspension of qualification as to the plaintiff 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 11 as the chairperson of the defendant clan as shown in the separate sheet shall be null and void, and as long as the defendant clan is disputing this, the plaintiffs shall have a benefit to seek confirmation. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case shall be accepted for all reasons, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of Disciplinary Action]

Judges Kim Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)