The existence of a non-corporate body of natural village as a non-corporate body, the matters deliberated to recognize the ownership of its proprietary property, and the method of selecting representatives.

An unincorporated association or foundation may become a party to a civil lawsuit if there is a representative or manager of an unincorporated association or foundation. Therefore, if a natural father is a social organization that has a decision-making body and an executive body with its own own purpose as its members and conducts independent activities with its own activities, it shall have the ability to exercise the right as a non-corporate group. However, if the natural father exists as a non-corporate group, it shall determine the scope of members of natural fatherin and the nature of natural fatherin, whether there are regulations or customs on the existence and organization of representatives and the operation of natural fatherin general meeting, which is a decision-making body of natural fatherin and natural fatherin, and whether there are regulations or customs on the existence and organization of representatives, and the course and form of management of inherent property. If there are regulations or customs on the selection of the representative of the executive body, it shall follow, but if not, it shall be appointed by the attendance of a majority of the representatives of households constituting the father in that case and by the affirmative vote

Article 31 of the Civil Act, Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 4455, Jun. 2, 1988) (Law No. 1991, Dec. 26, 1991)

Sejong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal

Defendant-Appellant Lee Jae-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Changwon District Court Decision 91Na3509 delivered on July 30, 1992

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. An unincorporated association or foundation may become a party to a civil lawsuit if a representative or manager exists. Thus, if a natural father is a social organization in which a decision-making body or executive body has its own unique purpose with its own inherent purpose and has a representative, it shall be deemed that the natural father is capable of acquiring rights as a non-corporate group. However, if the natural father exists as a non-corporate group and the fact that it owns its own property is recognized, first of all, the scope of members of the natural fatherins, the unique nature of the natural fatherins and the unique nature of the natural fatherins, the existence of the representative, and the organization and operation of the natural fatherins and the decision-making body of the natural fatherins, and the process and form of management of the natural father in which the executive body owns its own property shall be determined, and if there are regulations or customs on the selection of the representative, it shall be determined according to such regulations or customs, but if not, it shall be determined by the attendance of the majority of the representatives of households constituting the subins and the consent of attendance (see each Decision 205Da7965, 297.7.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts that since the 13th generation of the YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY.

However, according to the records, there is no material to see that the plaintiff village owns other properties than the forest of this case, and there is a witness who has been in charge of the forest of this case for several hundred and fifty years, and the court below also determined how to manage the forest of this case. The court below recognized that the chairperson has been representing the plaintiff village in practice by taking the second witness at the court below and the first instance court witness 1, and then did so (record 58 pages). However, according to his first witness's testimony, it is considerably divided into five and eight (one and five hundred and five (58), so it is doubtful whether the representative of the plaintiff village village of this case was in charge of the third party's withdrawal and the second party's withdrawal of the plaintiff village of this case's forest of this case's forest of this case's forest of this case's case's forest of this case's forest of this case's forest of this case's forest of this case's forest of this case's forest of this case's case's forest of this case's forest of this case's case's forest of this case's 1.

3. Furthermore, the record does not show that there is a provision on the selection of the representative of the plaintiff village. Thus, the selection of the representative shall be made by the attendance of the majority of the representatives of the households constituting the village and by the affirmative vote of a majority of the households present. However, according to the evidence Nos. 6 and evidence Nos. 15, in holding the residents' general meeting, it is the attendance of all the residents of the plaintiff village. However, according to the evidence Nos. 14-1 through 31 ( photographs) submitted by the plaintiff to prove that the graves of the plaintiff village were installed on the forest of this case, only four persons, such as the non-party 5, non-party 6, non-party 7, and non-party 8, etc., were present at the above residents' general meeting, and it is not clear whether the above representatives were the representatives of the non-party 9, non-party 10, non-party 112, non-party 14, non-party 15, non-party 16, non-party 17, and non-party 219.

4. The court below should first determine the scope of the members of the plaintiff village and examine whether the decision-making agency or representative exists, the management status of the forest of this case, and the time when the plaintiff village purchased it and claimed that the plaintiff village was in title trust with the above non-party 1, and then examine whether the plaintiff village was entitled to represent the plaintiff village to the above non-party 3, and whether the plaintiff village purchased the forest of this case and sold the forest of this case to the above non-party 1, and whether it was true that the plaintiff village was in title trust with the above non-party 1. The court below found that the forest of this case was owned and managed by the above non-party 1 as the non-corporate association on the premise that the plaintiff village was entitled to represent the plaintiff, and that the forest of this case was owned and managed by the title trust with the above non-party 3 as the non-corporate association without legal capacity. The arguments are with merit within the scope of pointing this out.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is omitted, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.