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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A clan is a naturally created clan group composed of members of the common ancestor for the purpose of protecting the graves of the common ancestor and promoting friendship among its members, and the clan property is an essential factor in achieving the purpose of this clan.

In light of the purpose and nature of the clan, the nature and importance of the clan property, a resolution of the general meeting on the distribution of the clan property shall be null and void if the contents of the resolution are considerably unfair or are contrary to good morals and other social order.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74775 Decided September 30, 2010). In addition, the executives of a clan who have a similar contractual relationship with a clan have a duty not only to follow the rules of the clan or the resolution of the general meeting of the clan but also to exercise due care as a good manager in managing affairs concerning the management and disposition of the property of the clan.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6554 Decided December 28, 2007). 2. A.

The judgment below

According to the reasons and records, the following facts are revealed.

1) The Plaintiff is the second son of G, the 5th h h h son of G, the city group in F, and the second son of G, the second Ha. Defendant C was the president of the Plaintiff from March 1, 2006 to October 2015, and Defendant D was the vice president of the general affairs division, Defendant E was the vice president and the vice president of the general affairs division. 2) The Plaintiff held a general meeting on March 1, 2006 and passed a resolution on March 1, 2006 to complete the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of two weeks, K 84,82 square meters and two parcels, which were nominal in trust with V, etc., and delegated all necessary authorities for filing lawsuits, etc. to Defendant C.

Defendant C, on behalf of the Plaintiff, filed a lawsuit for return of the paper on behalf of the Plaintiff and two others, and sentenced the dismissal of the lawsuit in the first instance court, but won in the appellate court, and the appeal was dismissed on February 12, 2009, thereby the above winning judgment became final and conclusive.

3) The Plaintiff’s general meeting on November 23, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “general meeting”).