[1] The legal nature of a lawsuit claiming the transfer of ownership due to the cancellation of title trust with respect to a combined real estate(=the requisite co-litigation)

[2] Where a part of the co-litigants have filed an appeal in an essential co-litigation or the other party has filed an appeal against a part of the co-litigants, the scope of adjudication on appeal, and whether it is permissible to render a judgment only on the part of the co-litigants in an essential co-litigation or to render an additional

[3] In a case where the Defendants appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance which fully accepted a claim for ownership transfer registration against a real estate joint owner for termination of title trust, but the co-defendant Gap did not appeal, the case holding that the court below erred by violating the Acts and subordinate statutes of Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the above lawsuit constitutes an essential co-litigation and its effect of appeal raised by a part of the co-litigants extends to Gap, on the grounds that it constitutes an inherent indispensable co-litigation, and thus

[4] Whether an auditor shall convene a general meeting or convene a general meeting with the permission of the court where Article 70 of the Civil Code applies mutatis mutandis where a legitimate convening authority of the general meeting of a clan fails to comply with the legitimate convening demand of the members of the clan (negative)

[5] In a case where a clan member organized an emergency countermeasure committee and requested the president of the clan and the persons with authority to convene the special meeting, but failed to comply with this request, and held the special meeting by directly convening a convocation notice, the case holding that the above special meeting held by the members of the emergency countermeasure committee with a convening notice directly to all its members, since the president et al. failed to comply with the above request for convening the special meeting without justifiable grounds

[1] Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 271 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 271 of the Civil Act / [4] Articles 31, 70, and 71 of the Civil Act / [5] Articles 31, 70, and 71 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da23238 decided Dec. 10, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 309) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44615, 44622 decided Dec. 12, 2003 (Gong2004Sang, 129), Supreme Court Decision 2008Da50691 decided Apr. 29, 201 / [4] Supreme Court Decision 92Da51372 decided Mar. 12, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 1170), Supreme Court Decision 94Da53563 decided Jun. 16, 195 (Gong195Ha, 2501), Supreme Court Decision 2008Da636579 decided Sep. 26, 2015)

Searching Jin-Jin Pyeong-Jin (Attorney Choi Chang-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others

Daejeon High Court Decision 2009Na7593 decided August 27, 2010

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

1. First, we examine the grounds of appeal against the defendant 2 and 3 ex officio before determining them.

A. A lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of termination of title trust with respect to a real estate which has become a joint co-litigation constitutes a joint-litigation in relation to the joint-litigants (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da23238, Dec. 10, 1996). In the case of such a joint-litigation, the appeal of the other party against a part of the co-litigants or co-litigants raised by a part of the co-litigants is effective against other co-litigants. As such, the final judgment is interrupted in relation to all co-litigants, and the lawsuit is transferred to the appellate court as a whole. The effect of the judgment of the appellate court is limited to co-litigants who have not filed an appeal, and thus the appellate court shall deliberate and decide on all co-litigants (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44615, 44622, Dec. 12, 2003).

Therefore, when rendering a judgment on the merits of an essential co-litigation, a single final judgment shall be rendered on all co-litigants, and only a part of co-litigants shall be rendered, or a judgment on the remaining co-litigants shall not be permitted (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da50691, Apr. 29, 2010, etc.).

B. According to the records, the plaintiff filed a claim for the registration of ownership transfer on the co-ownership share 11,171/960,327 in relation to the forest of this case, and the registration of ownership transfer on the co-defendant 2, 3 and the co-defendant 89,347/960,327 in relation to the co-defendant 1's co-defendant 1,171/960,327 in relation to the forest of this case, on the ground that it was caused by the plaintiff's title trust. The first instance court accepted all the plaintiff's claim, and the first instance court appealed against the judgment of the first instance (However, the defendant 3 did not appeal at the court below), but the co-defendant of the first instance court appealed against the defendant 1, 2, and 3, who filed an appeal, notified the date for pleading to the appellate court and conducted the examination, and only the plaintiff and the aforementioned defendants were sentenced to a judgment.

Examining the process of the above lawsuit in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the plaintiff's lawsuit seeking the registration of transfer of ownership against the co-defendants of the court of first instance constitutes an essential co-litigation. In this case, the effect of appeal by the defendant 2 and the defendant 3, who is part of the co-litigants, is not effective against the co-defendants of the court of first instance [ insofar as the appeal by the defendant 3 was withdrawn, but the appeal by the defendant 2, who is the above appeal, remains (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da40980, Aug. 24, 2007)] The court below should have deliberated and decided on the co-defendants of the court of first instance and sentenced a single judgment. Nevertheless, the court below should have deliberated and decided only on the remaining parties except the co-defendants of the court of first instance, and it should be decided again by the court of first instance [see Supreme Court Decision 9Da1309, Sep. 24, 2007].

2. Next, we examine the grounds of appeal against Defendant 1.

A. Although a clan member requested a legitimate convening authority in accordance with the rules of the clan or the convening authority of the general meeting of a clan for the management or disposition of the clan's properties, if the convening authority of the clan does not comply with the request without justifiable grounds, the following shall be allowed to convene the general meeting on behalf of the convening authority (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da51372, Mar. 12, 1993; 94Da53563, Jun. 16, 1995; 97Da25279, Sept. 26, 1997; 97Da25279, Sept. 26, 1997; and Article 70 of the Civil Act does not necessarily require an auditor to convene the general meeting or to convene the general meeting with the permission of the court (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da46365, Apr. 6, 2006).

나. 원심이 확정한 사실에 의하면, 이 사건 종중은 탐진최씨 제12세손 ‘ 소외 1’ 및 그 아들 ‘ 소외 2’의 후손 중 성년 이상인 사람을 구성원으로 하는 종중인 사실, 이 사건 종중의 종중원인 소외 3, 4 등은 종중 임원들 주도의 종중 재산 매도 및 그 매매대금의 분배에 불만을 품고 2008년 6월경부터 비상대책위원회(이하 ‘비대위’라고 하고, 이를 구성하거나 이에 동조한 종원을 ‘비대위 측 종원’이라고 한다)를 구성하여 종중 회장인 피고 1에게 위 매매대금의 분배, 종중 임원 개임 등의 의안을 다룰 종중 임시총회의 개최를 요구하였고, 위 피고가 이를 거부하면서 이 사건 종중은 기존 임원들에 동조하는 종원들과 비대위 측 종원들 사이에 심한 갈등이 발생한 사실, 비대위 측 종원들이 2008년 8월경 이 사건 종중의 회장인 피고 1 및 연고항존자 소외 5, 차석 연고항존자 소외 6에게 종중 임시총회의 소집을 요구하였으나 위 3인은 이를 거부하였고, 이에 소외 4는 2008. 9. 3. 비상대책위원회 명의로 자신이 파악하고 있는 종원들에게 “회장, 총무 및 임원진 전원사퇴, 임원진 공금횡령 환수조치문제 등”을 안건으로 한 비상 임시총회 소집을 통지한 사실, 이에 따라 2008. 9. 6. 14:00경 임시총회가 개최되어 “종원 44명이 참석하여 전원 찬성으로 소외 3이 회장으로 선임되었다.”는 내용의 총회 회의록이 작성되었고, 곧바로 15:00경 소외 3이 비대위원장 자격으로 총회를 진행하여 “참석 종원 44명 중 34명이 비대위를 인준하였고 기존 임원들은 2008. 9. 6.부터 자격이 상실되었으며 향후 비대위가 종중 업무를 추진하여 바로잡은 연후에 새로운 임원을 구성해 업무를 인계하겠다.”는 내용의 총회 회의록이 작성된 사실, 이후 소외 3은 2008. 9. 9. 비대위원장 명의로 피고 1 등 이 사건 종중의 기존 임원들에게 “비대위가 발족하여 기존 임원을 해임하였으니 추후 종중 업무는 비대위에서 인수하겠다.”는 내용의 통지를 하고, 2008. 9. 25. 비대위 명의로 종원들에게 총회 개최를 통지한 후 2008. 10. 5. 비대위원장 자격으로 총회를 개최한 사실, 한편 피고 1은 비대위와는 별도로 2008. 12. 22. 종중 회장 지위에서 이 사건 종중의 임시총회를 개최하고, “ 피고 1은 회장직을 사임하였고, 참석 종원 61명 중 의결권이 부인된 여성 종원 3명을 제외한 58명 중 47명의 찬성으로 소외 7을 신임 회장으로 선임하였다.”는 내용의 총회 회의록을 작성한 사실, 이후 소외 7은 2009. 3. 22. “자금사용에 대한 감사보고, 이사 선임”을 안건으로 한 임시총회를 개최하였는데, 비대위 측 종원들이 다수 참석하여 소외 7에 대한 탄핵안을 발의하고 이에 찬성하는 종원들의 서명을 받자 위 임시총회는 파행으로 끝난 사실, 비대위 측 종원들인 소외 4, 8 등은 소외 3의 위임을 받아 2009. 3. 26. 임시총회 소집통지를 하였고, 2009. 4. 5. 개최된 임시총회에서 “참석 종원 31명 중 25명의 찬성으로 소외 7을 탄핵하고 소외 8을 신임 회장으로 선임하였다.”는 내용의 총회 회의록을 작성한 사실, 한편 소외 7은 별도로 임시총회 소집통지를 하여 2009. 4. 20. “규약 개정, 임원 선임”을 안건으로 한 총회를 개최한 사실, 그러다가 이 사건 소송의 진행 중에 소외 8 및 소외 7을 종중 회장으로 선임한 각 임시총회의 절차상 적법성에 대한 의문이 제기되자, 비대위 측 종원들은 2009. 6. 15. 피고 1(기존의 회장) 및 소외 7(기존 임원진이 새로운 회장이라고 주장하는 사람), 소외 5(연고항존자), 소외 6(차석 연고항존자)에게 “종중 회장 확정”을 안건으로 한 임시총회의 소집을 요구하였으나, 위 4인은 이를 거절한 사실, 이에 비대위 측 종원들은 이 사건 종중의 족보를 통해 종원을 확정하고 각 종원의 연락처를 조사한 후 2009. 6. 26. 자신들을 이 사건 종중의 임시총회 발기인으로 하여 여성 종원을 포함한 연락 가능한 종원 261명에게 임시총회 소집을 통지한 사실, 이에 따라 2009. 7. 5. 개최된 임시총회에 82명의 종원이 참석하였고, 그 중 81명의 찬성으로 “ 소외 8을 회장으로 선임하고, 종중의 명칭은 ‘탐진최씨중서령공신평파종회’으로 확정한다.”는 내용의 결의를 한 사실을 알 수 있다.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is justifiable for non-Subrogation members to demand convocation of an extraordinary general meeting in order to eliminate the qualification expenses for representatives in relation to the management, disposition, etc. of the clan properties to the persons holding the authority to convene the extraordinary general meeting, and Defendant 1 et al. shall be deemed to have refused the above demand for convocation without justifiable grounds. Therefore, the extraordinary meeting held on July 5, 2009 by non-Subrogation members who directly notify all the members of the call shall be deemed lawful, barring any special circumstances.

C. Nevertheless, the court below rejected the lawsuit of this case on the ground that the above Supreme Court precedents are applied only to cases where there are special circumstances in which Article 70 of the Civil Act cannot be applied, or where a clan does not permit the convocation of a general meeting by the above method, etc., the purpose of the clan cannot be achieved, etc. In this case, the special circumstances such as this case are not recognized, and the special general meeting convened by non-Subrogation members is inappropriate, and the resolution that the non-Subrogation members appointed the non-party 8 as the president is also unlawful. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the person entitled to convene a general meeting

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court 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 Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)