[1] The validity of a resolution where a clan has made a resolution on the management of a clan's property by opening a general meeting regularly without special convening procedures on the designated date each year (effective)

[2] Where the majority of the members of the clan elected the representative of the clan and delegate the litigation about the property of the clan to them, the case reversing the judgment of the court below which found that the resolution of the majority of the members of the clan, such as the election of the representative of the clan or the disposal of the property of the clan, did not meet the quorum of the general meeting of the clan in a case where the above resolution did not meet the quorum of the general meeting of the clan in a case where the resolution of the clan did not meet the quorum of the general meeting of the clan because it did not meet the quorum of the general meeting of the clan in the case

[1] Articles 31 and 75 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 31 and 75 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 67Da2013 decided Nov. 21, 1967 (No. 15-3, 303), Supreme Court Decision 91Da189 decided Aug. 13, 1991 (Gong1991, 2329), Supreme Court Decision 92Da18146 decided Dec. 11, 1992 (Gong1993, 445), Supreme Court Decision 92Da53910 decided Jul. 16, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2284)

Pyeong Pyeong Paz Co., Ltd. (Attorney Shin Dong-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 2010Na5895 Decided April 11, 2011

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Where members of a clan regularly gather at a certain place on a certain day each year in accordance with the rules or practices of a clan and manage the church affairs of the clan, the convening procedure of the clan general meeting is not required separately (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Da27703, Sept. 30, 1994; 2005Da36298, Dec. 8, 2005; 2005Da56315, May 11, 2007; 2005Da56315, May 11, 2007). If the clan has made a resolution on the management of the clan property by opening a general meeting regularly at the time of each year without any special convening procedure, the above resolution shall be deemed valid according to the custom of the clan (see Supreme Court Decisions 67Da2013, Nov. 21, 196; 2010Da16319, Aug. 13, 1991);

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its holding, and based on the premise that Article 265 of the Civil Act concerning the preservation of collective property cannot be applied to the preservation of collective property, and barring any special circumstance, the resolution of the general meeting of members pursuant to Article 276 (1) of the Civil Act shall not be applied to the case where a clan, an association which is not a juristic person, files a lawsuit as an act of preserving its collective property, it shall undergo a resolution of the general meeting of members unless there are special circumstances (Supreme Court Decision 2009Da8360 Decided February 11, 2010). The resolution of the general meeting of members of a clan shall be decided by the majority present at the general meeting of members unless there are special provisions or the custom of the clan clans' meeting (Supreme Court Decision 93Da4089 Decided November 22, 1994). Thus, the court below held that the plaintiff still attended the general meeting of members of the non-party 2, who is the representative of the above clan, and held 141.

3. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

The plaintiff's clan argued that it is the customary practice of the plaintiff's clan that the majority of the members of the plaintiff's clan who attended the clan, such as the gathering of the clan members and the election of the representative of the clan or the disposition of the property of the clan, etc. on October 15 of each year, which is the date of the clan (see the preparatory brief of March 15, 201). If there is the custom of the plaintiff's clan as above, the majority of the members of the plaintiff's clan who are the date of the clan, elected the non-party as the representative of the plaintiff's clan, and delegated the non-party with the litigation about the forest land of this case to the non-party. However, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the resolution of the general meeting of the plaintiff's clan, and judged that the resolution of the general meeting of the plaintiff's clan did not meet the above quorum, and therefore, it cannot be seen that there was a serious defect in the method of the resolution of the plaintiff's clan, and therefore, it cannot be justified.

4. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)