beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against C who is represented by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserted that D clan was a member of D, and around 1904, the Plaintiff built a G to gather new EraraF located in Dong-dong, Chungcheongnam-gun, and registered the title of H, etc. the land, etc. of Dong-dong, Chungcheongnam-gun, H, etc. Around 2015, H et al. was incorporated into a local river site, and the Plaintiff received compensation of KRW 32,049,200 and delivered it to the Defendant who was the general secretary of the Plaintiff at the time.
Therefore, the defendant should pay the plaintiff the above compensation amounting to 32,049,200 won and damages for delay.
2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety
A. The Defendant’s main defense defense Plaintiff is a superior organization for the instant lawsuit, and there is no substantive organization, and thus, is not a party to the instant lawsuit.
B. Determination 1) The unique meaning of the relevant legal principles does not require a special organization of a naturally created clan group for the purpose of protecting the graves of the common ancestor and promoting friendship among the members of the clans. The descendants sharing the common ancestor and the clans naturally become the members of the clan when they reach majority without distinction of gender (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Da1178, Jul. 21, 2005). The unique meaning of a clan is that no clan member is deprived of his/her qualification to be members of the clan. Accordingly, an organization that only some members of the clans residing in a specific area is merely a similar organization of the clan and does not have a unique meaning. The unique meaning of a clan shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the purpose of the clans, its establishment and organization’s circumstances, the scope and standard of members, and the ability of the parties to the clans ex officio examination (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da11349, Nov. 24, 2011).