A. Whether the procedure of convening a meeting may be lawful in a case where the door members meet regularly once a year in accordance with the rules or practices in the door and handle a large apology (negative)

(b) The case holding that if the door-to-door contains a door-to-door provision that represents the door-to-door, but where the door-to-door provision provides that the door-to-door general meeting may adopt a resolution for modification of the rules with the consent of a majority of the members present at the meeting, it shall not be null and void even though the door-to-door

A. In general, in holding a general meeting in the door, the representative or the person with authority to convene the general meeting shall generally make the notice of convening the general meeting to the door members, but in a case where the door members meet regularly at a certain place once a year in accordance with the rules or practices in the door and regularly at a certain place and handle the general meeting during the door at a certain time, there is no need for a separate convocation, and therefore there is no concern about the legitimacy of the convocation procedure.

B. The case holding that if the door-to-door representative rules exist in the door-to-door, but in the same rules, the general assembly of the door-to-door is formed as members present at the general meeting, with the consent of a majority of the present members, and if the above quorum provides that the general meeting may adopt a resolution for modification of the rules pursuant to the same quorum, it shall not be deemed null and void as it violates the above regulations, even though it has adopted a resolution for ratification of power of representation

A. Article 71 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 69Da1774 delivered on February 24, 1970 (No. 188Da1194 delivered on October 13, 1987 (Gong1987, 1713), Supreme Court Decision 91Da24663 delivered on October 11, 1991 (Gong191, 2713)

The highest choice of attorney-at-law from among the official documents of the PPP PP PP PP PP, etc.

Defendant 1 and 2 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Daegu High Court Decision 89Na3992 delivered on December 19, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

The court below found that the plaintiff 1 was the representative of the above 13 deceased 1 and the non-party 1 among the non-party 5 deceased 1 and the non-party 2 were the representative of the above 9 deceased 1 and the non-party 1 were the non-party 5 deceased 1 and the non-party 1 were the non-party 5 deceased 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 9 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were the non-party 5 deceased 1 and the non-party 1 were the non-party 9's non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's.

In addition, in holding a general meeting of the literature, the general principle is that the representative or the convening authority shall generally hold the convocation notice informing of the convocation of the general meeting. However, in a case where the members of the literature regularly meet at a certain place once a year in accordance with the rules or practices during the literature and deal with the general meeting at a certain time, there is no need to convene a separate meeting, and therefore there is no problem as to whether the convocation procedure is legitimate (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da24663 delivered on October 11, 191). Accordingly, in accordance with such legal principles, the court below is justified in the judgment of the court below that the court below, in accordance with such legal principles, has a practice of opening the general meeting on the date of the memorial day and opening the general meeting on the same page to dispose of the property during the literature, and that the resolution of the special meeting of May 31, 199, which elected Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 5 as the representative of the plaintiff's literature, regardless of whether it is legitimate or not the resolution of the general meeting convocation procedure.

In addition, it is true that the sentence of Article 8 of the Rules (No. 7-1) of the plaintiff's door, which points out the theory of lawsuit, provides that the head of the plaintiff's door shall represent the plaintiff's door. However, in light of the above Rules, the general assembly of the above door shall be formed as members present at the general assembly and shall make a resolution with the consent of a majority of the present members (Article 5), and in accordance with the above quorum, the general assembly shall make a resolution for modification of the Code at the general meeting of October 15, 191, even though the resolution for ratification of the power of representation among the plaintiff's door of the plaintiff's door in this lawsuit was made to the non-party 2 and the non-party 5, who is not the head of the Gu, and it shall not be deemed null

2. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 through 4.

The fact-finding and decision of the court below that the land of this case was acquired in its original form and trusted in title to four persons, including Defendant 1, etc. is acceptable in light of the following evidence relations, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, nor any incomplete deliberation, or any misapprehension of the legal principles as to title trust. All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)