(a) A case where an application for changing the indication of a party among the doors “A” comprised of 11 persons under 27 years of age who jointly set up a joint line is rejected by an application for changing the indication of a party to the door “B” comprised of 19 persons under 21 years of age who jointly set up a joint line

(b) Where a person who is not a member of the literature-related general meeting attends and speaks and participates in a vote, the validity of such decision on appointment;

A. The case holding that an application for changing the indication of party in the door “A” comprised of 11 persons aged 27 years old who jointly set the common lines to “B” comprised of 19 persons aged 21 years old who jointly set the common lines, and, as a result, seeking a change of the party having a separate entity different from the common lines and members, it is not permissible. (b) Even if a person who is not eligible to become a partner in the door attends and speaks and participates in the voting, if the number of persons other than the door members of the general meeting or the contents of his remarks do not reach the degree of impact on the resolution, the resolution for the appointment of the representative does not become null and void as a matter of course, and even if excluding the voting of persons other than the door members, if the quorum necessary for the establishment of the resolution meets the quorum, the validity of the resolution may be recognized.

A. Articles 48 and 227 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da1774 delivered on February 24, 1970 (Law No. 1894Ha, 2959 delivered on October 11, 1994) 94Da19792 delivered on October 11, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2959) 4279Sang3 delivered on May 14, 1946

[Defendant-Appellee] J. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.

Defendant-Appellant Park Jong-il, Counsel for defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 93Na3002 delivered on December 22, 1993

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Change of party indication is allowed only to change the indication within the extent that the identity of the person indicated as the party is recognized. According to the legal determination of the court below, the "Wooyang Sick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skick Skicks, which is indicated as the plaintiff at the time of the lawsuit of this case (hereinafter the plaintiff's text of this case) is legitimate, and the plaintiff's new change of the indication is not permitted to change the organization of 197.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no reason to argue that there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the change of party indication or the clan or the clan.

2. Based on the evidence of the trial, the court below confirmed that, prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case, neither the representative of the Plaintiff’s door nor the rules or practices regarding the convocation of the literacy general meeting have been established. When it was necessary to appoint a representative in the literature in order to file the lawsuit in this case, Nonparty 1, the resident of the literature middle class, among the literature middle class members, convened the literature middle class meeting. In addition to the attendance of the literature middle class six members, Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3, other than the literature middle class members, appointed Nonparty 4 as the representative with the consent of all the 8 participants, and the above Nonparty 2 did not have any other opinion on the appointment of the above non-party 4 as the representative, and the above real estate in this case was owned by the Plaintiff’s door middle class. Since the above door middle class meeting failed to meet the requirements as a valid general meeting of the door middle class, the above non-party 4, who was appointed from among the literature middle class meetings, could not be a legitimate representative among the doors of the Plaintiff, and thus, dismissed the lawsuit in this case.

However, even if a person who is unable to become a member of the literature-based general meeting attends and speaks and participates in the voting, if the number of persons who are not members of the literature-based general meeting or the contents of the speech do not reach the degree that the resolution would affect the resolution, such resolution shall not be deemed null and void as a matter of course unless there are special circumstances, and even if excluding the voting of persons who are not members of the literature-based general meeting, if the resolution satisfies the quorum necessary for the establishment of the resolution, the validity of the resolution shall be interpreted to be acceptable.

In the case of this case, even if the two members of the non-permanent council participating in the above resolution were excluded, all the 11 members of the 11 members of the gate who attended the above resolution agree with the resolution for the appointment of representative, and meet the quorum. In addition, when the process of the resolution for the appointment of representative as shown in the general meeting minutes (Evidence A) of the plaintiff's gate, the gate members present recommended the above non-party 4 as representative and re-convened the above non-party, and then asked the non-party 2's question about whether there is another person recommended as representative, and the above non-party 2's statement about the real estate of this case was made after the resolution for the appointment of representative was completed, it is difficult to see that the above resolution was invalid merely on the above basis of the above circumstances when examining the process of the resolution for the appointment of representative.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the lawsuit in this case by deciding that the above resolution of appointment of the representative is null and void, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the resolution of the literacy General Meeting, and it is clear that such illegality has influenced the judgment. Therefore, there is a reason to point out

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)