[1] In a case where the clan rules stipulate the date of the ordinary general meeting and do not specify a place, whether the representative of the clan must necessarily make a notice for convening the general meeting (negative)

[2] The case holding that a resolution of dismissal of a representative during the term of office at an ordinary general meeting constitutes an amendment of the articles of association, where the grounds for dismissal of a representative of a clan do not stipulate the rules of the clan

[1] Article 9 of the Regulations provides that "The ordinary general meeting shall be held on the first day of October every year and shall be held by the members attending the meeting on the day," it shall be understood that the above-mentioned practices of the relatives' meeting are accepted and the general meeting on the day shall be held at the ordinary meeting. Even if the above provisions do not specify the place of the general meeting, it shall be interpreted as the place for the ordinary meeting, and as long as the provisions of the regulations of the general meeting on the ordinary general meeting are interpreted to be held at a certain place on the fixed day each year, it is not necessary to set the notice for convening the general meeting even if the president is the person holding the convening the general meeting.

[2] Even though the grounds for dismissal are not separately provided for in the rules of the closed-class council, the resolution to dismiss the chairman who is under his/her term of office constitutes an amendment of the rules of the council, and as long as the quorum of the general meeting required for the amendment of the rules does not separately provide for the above rules, it is reasonable to view that it is possible to amend the rules by a majority of the members present at the meeting.

[1] Articles 69 and 71 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 75 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Da11602 decided Oct. 13, 1987 (Gong1987, 1713) (Gong1987, 1713), Supreme Court Decision 91Da1189 decided Aug. 13, 1991 (Gong1991, 2329), Supreme Court Decision 91Da24663 decided Oct. 11, 1991 (Gong191, 2713), Supreme Court Decision 92Da47694 decided May 25, 193 (Gong193, 193, 2713) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da19829 decided Aug. 28, 1992 (Gong193, 1843)

Applicant (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Respondent (Law Firm International Law Office, Attorneys Kim Dai-ju et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 95Na6466 delivered on December 6, 1996

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment below is as follows.

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts by comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented.

○○○○ ○○ ○○ branch of a clan (hereinafter referred to as the “class of a clan”) shall be a clan set up in the Central City of Nonparty 2, who is the ○○○○○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ Macc, Nonparty 1-7 years old, and the general meeting shall be held on the first day (the first day) October in each year, and the general meeting shall be held on the second day (the first day) in October in each year, and the special general meeting and the officers’ meeting shall be convened by the chairperson when the chairperson deems it necessary or a majority of the executives demand the meeting, and shall send a notice to convene a meeting specifying the agenda one week prior to the opening to each member (Article 9), the president shall represent the branch of a clan and shall exercise overall control over its affairs, while the president shall assist the president and act on behalf of the president in the order

On February 20, 1994, at the extraordinary general meeting of the relatives' meeting held on the same day, the applicant was dismissed by the chairperson who was at the time, the respondent was elected as the chairperson, and the applicant was dissatisfied with the validity of the above resolution. On November 7, 1994, the date when the resolution was adopted, Nonparty 3, who was elected as the Speaker pro tempore, attended the general meeting and held the meeting on November 7, 1994, the date when the resolution was presented, was held by Nonparty 2, the respondent, etc., and the meeting was held, and the applicant was dismissed by the chairperson and the respondent was elected as the chairperson. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the applicant was dismissed by approximately 2 km away from the temporary meeting of the same day and notified by the president to the place of the general meeting, at the Dong office of the other members who did not attend the above temporary meeting. On December 2, 1995, the respondent re-appointed the general meeting as the chairperson.

B. After recognizing the above facts, the court below acknowledged that the above special general meeting is a legitimate special meeting, but regarding each of the above general meetings, since the clan gathering on the first day of the clan (the first day of the clan) before it was established, the clan gathering was discussed in its place of the clan. The provisions of the regulations of the general meeting concerning the general meeting express them, and there was no clear setting of the place of the general meeting, but before and after it, the general meeting shall be held at the place of the trial. In fact, the general meeting shall be held at the place of the trial, and the general meeting shall be held at the place of the trial, such as the case of 192, and since the separate procedures for convening the general meeting are not necessary if the clan members gather regularly at a certain place every year and handle the clan members' religious affairs according to the rules or practices of the clan, the general meeting was held as a legitimate defect of the above general meeting's members and the non-party 4 general meeting, which was composed of some members who did not participate in the meeting at the general meeting by the representative of the above (name 1 omitted).

2. We examine the grounds of appeal.

A. As to the grounds of appeal (excluding the remainder of the grounds for appeal against the members of a general meeting) by the applicant and the second and fourth grounds for appeal by the applicant

(1) In light of the records, the family council established the rules as well as prior to the enactment of the rules of the council [the first enforcement date of the rules of the council (record 51 pages) and the rules of the council (record 105 pages) amended by the respondent on November 9, 1986. The first enforcement date of the rules of the council has been the assent of November 9, 1986.). After the completion of the proposition in the tomb in the tomb in the tomb in the tomb in Nonparty 2, the members of the council discussed the intention of the clan 300, and the events of this day were continued without a separate convening procedure. The notice of convening the general meeting in the name of the chairperson was issued since 192. This is revealed that the resolution of convening the general meeting in the name of the chairperson, such as the election and dismissal of the chairperson, which continues to dispute over the status of the chairperson, and the fact-finding of the place and the convocation practices of the general meeting held on the date is justifiable, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

(2) Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the clan clan clan's regular general meeting was made at the beginning of October every year and the members attending the general meeting on that day as stipulated under Article 9 of the Rules. Thus, even if the place of the general meeting is not specified in the above provisions, it is supplementary interpretation as the place of the general meeting. In addition, since the rules of the general meeting are interpreted as being held at a certain place each year, even if the president is the person holding the general meeting, it is not necessary to convene the old general meeting (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu194, Oct. 13, 1987). Thus, it is not necessary to convene the general meeting and make a resolution at the general meeting of Nonparty 2 held without a notice of convening the general meeting, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the convocation of the general meeting, the rules of the general meeting, the rules of the general meeting, or the rules of the general meeting, or the rules of the general meeting.

(3) In comparison with the records, the court below's fact-finding and the decision of the court below that found the progress of the general meeting held in the cemetery non-party 2 on November 7, 1994 to be cured is just and there is no evidence to find that the non-party 5, who is alleged in the ground of appeal, was present at the above general meeting. We cannot accept the argument that there is an error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, violation of the principle of pleading, or misunderstanding of legal principles. Furthermore, since the resolution of the above general meeting of the above general meeting of the non-party 2, who is elected the respondent as the chairperson of the clan-friendly council, the argument in the grounds of appeal as to the general meeting of the non-party 2 in the

B. Of the grounds of appeal by the attorney at the ordinary meeting, the ground of appeal No. 1

All persons who attended each general meeting held in the cemetery for Nonparty 2 and passed a resolution selecting the chairperson as the chairperson is clear in the records that they are members of the clan as descendants of Nonparty 2. Accordingly, even if they are members of the clan as set out in the grounds of appeal, they cannot be said to constitute a resolution of other clans, etc. by attending the legitimate place of the clan clans meeting in the capacity of a clan member and attending the clans meeting in the capacity of a clan member. The court below's decision that the above resolution is valid is premised on the above decision, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the members of the ordinary meeting or the substance

C. As to the ground of appeal No. 3 by the applicant

A resolution to dismiss a chairperson during his/her term of office is practically an amendment of the rules of association, and since the above rules do not stipulate the quorum of the general meeting necessary for the amendment of the rules, it is reasonable to view that the resolution to dismiss the petitioner is possible by a majority of the members present. According to the records, this resolution is valid since the resolution to dismiss the petitioner was made with the consent of all the members present at the general meeting on November 7, 1994, and since the rules do not restrict the qualification of the chairperson, it cannot be deemed unlawful since the respondent does not limit the qualification of the chairperson. The judgment of the court below that made this conclusion is just and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as argued in the Grounds for Appeal concerning the dismissal of the representative of a clan.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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)