A. Requirements for recognizing the sociality of a non-legal entity of a clan

B. The base point of time to determine whether a clan is a party;

(c) Whether it is necessary to convene a separate clan meeting if members of the clan regularly gather at a certain place every year in accordance with the rules or practices of the clan, and have decided on the clan's history on a certain day;

(d) Methods of managing and disposing of clan properties;

(a) A clan is a naturally occurring family organization formed by descendants of a common ancestor for the purpose of protecting the graves of the ancestor and promoting friendship between descendants and the descendants of the ancestor, and is established by descendants of the ancestor at the same time as the death of the ancestor and the descendants of the clan. If the clan has and continues to be organized to be represented by a representative elected in accordance with the rules or customs of the clan, the organization as a non-corporate group is recognized.

B. The issue of whether a clan as a non-corporate body has the capacity to be a party is related to the litigation requirements, and it should be determined at the time of the closing of argument in the fact-finding court

(c) If members of a clan regularly gather at a certain place on a fixed day each year in accordance with the rules or practices of the clan and are to deal with the religious affairs of the clan, it is not necessary to convene a clan conference separately.

D. Since the property of a clan belongs to the collective ownership of members of the clan, its management and disposition shall first comply with the provisions of the clan regulations, and unless the clan regulations do not exist, it shall follow the resolution of the general meeting of members of the clan.

Article 31 of the Civil Act; Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 275 and 276(1) of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da16525 delivered on August 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 2428), 91Da42081 delivered on July 24, 1992 (Gong1992, 2524). Supreme Court Decision 91Da30675 delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong1992, 293), 91Da31661 delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong192, 294), 91Da1189 delivered on August 13, 1991 (Gong191, 2329), 91Da43862 delivered on March 10, 1992 (Gong194, 194, 194; 199Da329389 delivered on September 26, 194).

Law Firm Seocheon General Law Office, Attorney Choi Byung-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant in relation to the defendant-appellant for the defendant-appellant for the defendant-appellant for the defendant-appellant

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

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na46976 delivered on May 4, 1993

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief filed after July 12, 1993).

1. On the first ground for appeal

A clan is a naturally created family organization formed by descendants of a common ancestor for the purpose of protecting the graves of the common ancestor and promoting friendship between descendants and the deceased (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da42081, Jul. 24, 1992; 91Da42081, Jul. 24, 1992); if a clan has been engaged in continuous activities with its organization to the extent represented by the representative elected in accordance with the rules or customs of the clan, etc., the organization as a non-corporate association is recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da16525, Aug. 27, 1991); the issue of whether a clan has capacity as a non-corporate body is related to the litigation requirements, and it shall be determined at the time of the closing of argument at the fact-finding court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da3161, Nov. 26, 1991).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff clan was a member of the clan which is composed of the non-party 1 (the non-party 18 years old son), the descendants of the non-party 1 (the non-party 18 years old son) who is the descendants of the non-party 12 years old son in accordance with macroscopic evidence, and was engaged in the activities of the specifications of the joint ancestor, the management of graves and their memorials, and the friendship of the members of the clan on September 25, 198, and appointed non-party 2 as the representative of the clan at the general meeting of the clan on November 10, 1989, after the institution of the case at the ordinary meeting of this case, the non-party 3 was appointed as the representative of the clan on November 10, 1989, and rejected the defendants' objection to the safety of the clan for the purpose of the mediation of the joint ancestor. Accordingly, the court below's finding of facts is justified, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the defendant's representative.

In addition, even though the plaintiff's clan is only a clan organized by running in the lawsuit of this case and it is not a clan that had been operated by 30 members of the clan from about 20 years ago, even though the court below recognized that the plaintiff's clan had been in violation of the rules of evidence and had been operated by 30 members of the clan from about 20 years ago, as long as the plaintiff's clan has ability to be a non-corporate clan as a member at the time of the closing of argument in the court below, the above error does not affect the decision.

In addition, it cannot be said that the court below rejected the non-party 4's testimony of the non-party 4 witness posted for the reason that the court below recognized that the non-party 30 members of the clan had been working for about 20 years ago. The arguments are without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

(1) In a case where the 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 are to handle the church affairs, it is not necessary to separately convene a clan meeting (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da43862 delivered on March 10, 192, Supreme Court Decision 91Da1189 delivered on August 13, 199).

According to the records of this case, the executive officers (including the president) of the non-party clan of the male clan (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party clan") shall be appointed at the general meeting (Article 6), their terms of office shall be three years (Article 7), and the general meeting shall be held on October 12 each year (Article 10), and the non-party clan shall hold the general meeting after opening the vision at the cemetery of the non-party clan of the common ancestor on October 12 each year (Article 10.12). The non-party clan was held on November 17, 191 (Article 10.12.12.2) and the non-party clan of the above clan of the non-party clan of the non-party clan of the non-party clan of the non-party clan of the non-party clan of the non-party clan of the non-party clan of the non-party clan of the non-party clan of the non-party 5 who attended the general meeting and the non-party 2's new clan of the non-party 2 of the non-party.

In addition, even though the election of the officers under Article 16 of the clans Regulations is stipulated to be held by the election of the general social organization, only the secret voting cannot be deemed to be the election of the general social organization, so even if the above non-party 6 was elected as the chairperson at the ordinary general meeting on November 17, 191, the resolution of appointment shall not be deemed null and void.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that deemed the above non-party 6 as a legitimate representative of the non-party clan cannot be said to be erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

(2) Although the agreement of February 21, 1992 on the transfer of the land of this case between the non-party clan and the plaintiff clan on February 21, 1992, which was stated on the fourth day for pleading of the court below, was included in the assertion that the plaintiff clan was null and void since the plaintiff clan actively participated in the act of the non-party 6's breach of trust, the court below's determination on the above argument shall not be deemed to have been reversed since it rejected all the statements of Nos. 5, 6, and 7-2 as shown in the above argument, the testimony of the non-party 7 witness of the court below, and the result of the non-party 1's testimony of the non-party 1 as stated in the

(3) Since the property of a clan belongs to the collective ownership of members of the clan, its management and disposition shall first comply with the provisions of the clan regulations, and if there is no clan regulations on this point, it shall be decided by a resolution of the general meeting of the clan (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da27034 delivered on October 13, 1992).

According to the records of this case, Article 12 of the Rules of the non-party clan provides that matters concerning the "acquisition, disposal, and maintenance method of the property of the clan" shall follow the decision of the board of directors. On January 8, 1992, the board of directors of the non-party clan passed a resolution to entrust the non-party 6, the representative of the non-party 6, to the above non-party 6 with the authority to conduct all procedural acts and to make settlement other than judicial and non-judicial acts regarding this case, and upon delegation of the above authority, the non-party 6 transferred the land of this case to the plaintiff clan and the plaintiff on February 21, 1992, and granted the right to cancel the title trust of the defendants to the plaintiff clan, and the non-party 6 was authorized to transfer the land of this case to the plaintiff clan and to grant the plaintiff the right to cancel the title trust of the defendant to the defendant. Accordingly, according to the above decision of the non-party 6 who has the authority to make a decision on the disposition of the property of the clan.

Although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient, it is just that the above non-party 6 appears to have agreed on February 21, 1992 that the non-party 6 transferred the land of this case to the plaintiff clan on behalf of the non-party clan and granted the right to terminate the title trust to the defendants, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the transfer of clan property, such as the theory of lawsuit, or the granting of the right to terminate the title trust, or by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence

(4) In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the management and disposal of the clan property should be decided first by the clan regulations or the clan customs, and if there is no such regulations or custom, it shall be decided by the majority resolution of the clan general meeting, but the above non-party 6 shall transfer the land of this case to the plaintiff and at the same time he granted the right to terminate the title trust to the defendants on behalf of the non-party clan, in accordance with the resolution of the general meeting of November 17, 191 and the clan clan rules. The above judgment of the court below contains a judgment rejecting the defendants' assertion that "the above non-party 6's agreement on February 21, 1992 shall be null and void, since the disposal of the clan property cannot be deemed as the representative or the board of directors' authority of the general meeting, and even if the non-party 6's general meeting delegates such authority to the representative or the board of directors,

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)