(a) Validity of a resolution of the general meeting of clans held without a notice of convening some of its members, and whether such resolution can be deemed valid where the majority of the members of the clans who can be notified of it is approved;

B. The case holding that the judgment of the court below that the judgment of the previous lawsuit has res judicata effect on the judgment of the previous lawsuit is erroneous

(a) A notification of convening a clan Assembly shall be given to all the members of the clans so notified that each member may participate in the discussions and resolutions of the clan, and the resolution of the clan Assembly held without such notification of convening a clan shall be null and void, and it shall not be deemed that such resolution has obtained the consent of a majority of the members of the clans so notified, unless otherwise stipulated by the regulations or practices of the clans.

B. The court below held that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful on the ground that the lawsuit of this case was instituted by a person without the power of representation, and the lawsuit of this case was brought again without any defects in the resolution of the power of representation in the previous judgment of retirement, and thus, it cannot be dismissed as it goes against the res judicata of the previous final judgment. The judgment of this case also has res judicata effect as to the defects in the requirements of lawsuit which are established in the judgment of this case, but there is no possibility that res judicata effect of the previous final judgment is res judicata effect because the person who brought the lawsuit as the representative of the plaintiff of this case claims the power of representation on the ground that he was newly appointed by the general

A. Article 31 of the Civil Act: Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 205 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da9466 delivered on June 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 2008), 91Da43862 delivered on March 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1294), and 92Da34124 delivered on November 27, 1992 (Gong193, 263)

[Defendant-Appellee] Jink Chang-gu Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee-appellee-appellant

Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 91Na26576 delivered on July 21, 1993

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against Nonparty 2.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A notification of convening a clan general meeting shall be given to all the members of the clans who are notified unless there is the rules or practices of the clan, and each member shall be given an opportunity to participate in the discussions and resolutions of the clans general meeting, and the resolution of the clans general meeting held without such notification of convening a meeting is invalid, and it shall not be deemed that the resolution has been obtained by the majority of the members who can be notified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da34124, Nov. 27, 1992; 91Da43862, Mar. 10, 192; 91Da94666, Jun. 25, 1991).

The court below found that the plaintiff's non-party 1 was a non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's.

Although there is a somewhat inappropriate part of the judgment of the court below, it seems that this is not a reason to affect the conclusion of the court below. The appeal is without merit.

2. However, while the court below stated that the lawsuit in this case was instituted by a person without the power of representation and it is unlawful, it added to the opinion that the lawsuit in this case would not be dismissed due to the defect in the power of representation as stated in the judgment by the Seoul District Court's 89DaDa19347, which became final and conclusive, because the lawsuit in this case was brought again with the defect in the power of representation as stated in the judgment by the retirement decision by the Seoul District Court's 89Da19347, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The judgment in this case also contains res judicata effect as to the defect in the requirements for the lawsuit which became final and conclusive. However, in this case, the above non-party 2 asserts the power of representation on the ground that he was newly appointed by the general meeting of clan which was called after the final and conclusive judgment of the above case, and there is no room for the res judicata effect of the above final judgment

The court below's dismissal of the plaintiff's claim is erroneous, but even in such a case, since the plaintiff's claim does not have res judicata effect on the merits of the claim in this case, the above erroneous judgment of the court below is not a ground for reversal (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da4857 delivered on July 13, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 91Da29026 delivered on November 24, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 92Da1046 delivered on October 9, 1992, etc.).

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against Nonparty 2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Justice)