[1] The method of determining the scope of the members of a clan subject to notification of convening a clan general meeting where the clan member is published

[2] The method of determining the persons who have the right to convene a clan general meeting

[1] Where the clans are published, the scope of the clans subject to notification of the general meeting of the clans shall be determined by the clans unless there are special circumstances such as errors in the entry of the clans, and since it is necessary to determine the column of the clans and the scope of the clans subject to notification of the convening of the general meeting of the clans, it is not necessarily necessary to publish the clans subject to notification of the convening of the clans, and it is no longer necessary for the clans to publish the clans,

[2] Whether a person is a person who has a duty to resist or not shall, in principle, be recognized by free convictions by selecting evidence submitted by the court. However, if it is necessary to look at a family register in order to determine the scope of the members of the clan subject to a duty to call a notice, it is reasonable to determine whether a person who has a duty to call a notice is a person who has a duty to call a

[1] Article 31 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 31 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da42439 delivered on March 9, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1152), Supreme Court Decision 93Da514 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1654) Supreme Court Decision 98Da6068 delivered on May 25, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1255) Supreme Court Decision 99Da20155 delivered on February 25, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 809)

Plaintiff clan (Law Firm Marin, Attorneys Lee Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 13 others (Law Firm Jeon, Kim & Lee, Attorneys Shin Hyun-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na110892 decided May 27, 2009

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In full view of the evidence of employment, including the evidence No. 1 and No. 23, the lower court acknowledged the fact that Nonparty 1 and No. 2, who is the non-party 1 and the non-party 36 family members of the Plaintiff clan called up against 171 domestic residents whose address is confirmed among the 191 family members of the Plaintiff’s clan, at the special general meeting of February 7, 2009, the non-party 3 was elected by the attendance of 109 members and with strong majority consent, and at the same time confirmed the litigation conducted by them as the representative of the Plaintiff, the lower court determined that the previous defect on the legality, etc. of the representative was cured by the resolution of the special general meeting of February 7, 2009.

However, it is difficult to accept such judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Unless there are special circumstances, such as errors in the entry of a family register in the family register, the scope of the members subject to convening a convening general meeting of a clan shall be determined by the family register (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da42439, Mar. 9, 1993; 93Da51454, May 10, 1994; 99Da20155, Feb. 25, 2000). Here, the column of the family register published and the scope of the members of the clan subject to convening a convening general meeting of a clan shall be necessary to determine the scope of the family register which is the party to the clan, and it is not necessary to publish the family register of the clan, and it shall be free to publish the family register of the clan (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da60668, May 25, 199).

On the other hand, the issue of whether a person is a member of the family or not is a member of the family or a member of the family or a member of the family or member of the family or member of the family or member of the family or member of the family or member of the family or member of the family or member of the family or member of the family or member of the family or member of the family or member of the family or group

According to the records, the plaintiff clan did not submit a family register without disclosing any reasons such as the non-party 1's publication of the family register or the misunderstanding of its entries, and instead, the plaintiff clan submitted the family register (No. 1) and the family register (No. 23) which it voluntarily prepared, and the non-party 1, who is the colon of the above family register and the family register, had convened an extraordinary general meeting by determining the scope of the family members for whom notification was given pursuant to the above family register and the family register of the members of the clan. Thus, the court below should have deliberated further on whether the non-party 1 is a legitimate person entitled to convening the general meeting and the scope of the family members for whom notification was given, by means of the existence of the family register and the contents thereof.

Nevertheless, without any deliberation on this issue, the court below's decision that accepted the plaintiff's clan's claim based on the above family clan and the list of clan members is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to criteria for determining the scope of clan members subject to notice of convocation, incomplete deliberation, and violation of the rules of evidence. The appellant's ground of appeal pointing this out

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)