2013Da93579 Implementation of procedures for ownership transfer registration

A clan Association

1. B

2. C

3. I

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na19429 Decided November 7, 2013

August 27, 2015

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The representative of a clan shall be appointed in accordance with the rules or practices of the clan, and if not, the head of the clan or the head of the door shall convene and elect persons who have attained majority among the members of the clan, and if not, the head of the clan shall not be appointed by the head of the clan or the head of the door, and shall notify the existing members of the clan who are clearly residing in the Republic of Korea because they are the head of the clan or the head of the door, and shall convene a general meeting and appoint the representative of the clan at that meeting, unless there is no rules or practices regarding the appointment of the head of the clan, and shall not be appointed by the head of the clan, and shall not be appointed by the head of the clans to the extent that they are clearly residing in the Republic of Korea. It is sufficient that the head of the family who has the right to call a general meeting of the clan, among all the members of the clans, is the highest, and the highest, among all the members of the clans, the head of the clan or the head of the door shall be appointed.

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment, the evidence duly admitted, and the materials submitted by the Plaintiff in the trial room reveals the following facts.

A. On June 1, 2012, the Plaintiff clan issued a notice of convening an extraordinary general meeting to the members of 135 who are annually dependent on the family (20 years of age of BH branch). Accordingly, on June 16, 2012, the Plaintiff clan elected U as the president of the Plaintiff clan from the extraordinary general meeting held on June 16, 2012 and resolved to ratification the instant lawsuit.

B. On November 11, 2012, the Plaintiff clan again sent a notice of convening an extraordinary general meeting to the members of 139, who were to be the members of his/her family. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s clan again elected U as the chairperson of the Plaintiff clan at the extraordinary general meeting held on November 11, 2012, and resolved to ratification the instant lawsuit.

C. According to the plaintiff clan's family clan's family register (No. 16) published in 1998, there are two male members with a higher virance than V, who are 19 years of age as members of the above BC's 20 years of age as members of the above BC's 20 years of age, but they are equal to V and vir, but there are more male members with a higher age but there are BJ (CH), BK, BO, BM, BN, and BN as members of the women's family members with the same virance, CI, CJ, CL, and CL, and only names are written on the above family register.

D. However, at the time of convening the above special meeting, BK, BL, BO, BM, CI, and CJ had already died. On the other hand, BJ is ‘CH' and ‘CM' and the date of birth is ‘CN' and CL is ‘CN' and it is 'CN' and 'CN'. In addition, BI, the grandchildren 19 years old, was 96 years old at the time of convening the above special meeting, and it is difficult to grasp whether they were alive or their whereabouts, and BN and CK were also difficult to grasp.

3. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that (1) among the clans listed in the above table at the time of convening the above extraordinary general meeting, it is reasonable to view that: (a) all male clans and female clans including V and port members who died; (b) the actual age of whom is lower than V; or (c) it is difficult to grasp whether the Plaintiff’s clan was alive or dead; and (b) the Plaintiff’s clan, when convening the above extraordinary general meeting, specified V, which is the highest and highest cause of the age, to the extent that communication is possible by understanding whether the Plaintiff’s life or death was or contact with the method recognized as possible by the social norms by the above table; and (c) it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s clan, while keeping the above extraordinary general meeting, specified the Plaintiff’s membership as a tobacco who had the highest and highest base of age, to exercise the right to call the

4. Nevertheless, the court below did not fully examine the above circumstances, and on the ground that the above BI, BJ, K, BK, BL, BO, BM, and BN were written on the family clans of the Plaintiff clan and the notice of convening the above extraordinary general meeting was sent to BJ, the court below did not examine the above circumstances and found V at the time of the above extraordinary general meeting.

The plaintiff clan cannot be deemed to be a member of the family, and each of the above special meetings called to be a member of the family shall not be deemed to have been called by a legitimate convening authority, and the resolution at each of the above special meetings shall be null and void, and the lawsuit of this case shall be brought by a person without the power of representation, and the lawsuit of this case shall be deemed unlawful and dismissed.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the method of determining the persons who have the right to convene a clan general meeting, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

5. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below, and remand the case to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-young

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim In-bok, Counsel for the defendant

Justices Go Young-young