Whether the convening authority of a clan general meeting can be deemed to have lawfully notified of the convening authority of the general meeting by merely informing the convening authority of the general meeting to the representative of the branch or residential place.

(a)In the absence of the rules or practices of a clan concerning this, a call-up of the General Assembly shall be given by the convening authority in an appropriate manner to the members of the clan who are eligible to attend the Assembly, who are residing in Korea and whose whereabouts are clear and who are able to communicate with them, and it shall not be deemed that the convening authority has given notice of the call-up of the General Assembly to the representatives of the branch or by place of residence.

Article 31 of the Civil Act, Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Republic of Gangwon-gu District Court Decision 201Na1488 delivered on March 1, 201

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na33574 delivered on August 11, 1993

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

First, we examine the first ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party 1, who was the representative of the plaintiff clan, delegated the non-party 2 to convene an extraordinary general meeting, notified the non-party 2 to the non-party 2 who is in charge of communication by telephone, and notified the non-party 2 to the non-party 2 who is in charge of communication among the members of the non-party 2, and notified the non-party 2 to the non-party 2 who is in charge of communication by directly notifying the members of the non-party 2 of the non-party 2

In a case where there is no rules or practice of a clan concerning this, a call-up of a general meeting of a clan shall be notified by the convening authority in an appropriate manner to the clan members who are eligible to attend the general meeting, who are residing in the Republic of Korea and whose whereabouts are clear and who are able to contact with them, and the convening authority shall not be deemed to have lawfully notified the call-up of the general meeting solely on the ground that the convening authority notifies the representatives of the branch or the representatives of each residential place of the call-up (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da609, May 1

According to the records, there was no custom regarding the convocation of the special meeting until the relocation of the general meeting of this case, and there was no custom concerning the convocation of the special meeting of this case. Furthermore, it is not clear how the number of members who can communicate at the time of the convocation of the general meeting of this case, and how the number of members for each small-scale, as stated by the court below, is how much the number of members for each small-scale, as well as the evidence adopted by the court below. Meanwhile, even if the evidence adopted by the court below, it is insufficient to recognize that the non-party 3's testimony by the witness non-party 2 was not known to the members of each small-scale, and it is not sufficient to recognize that the directors of each small-scale, the director of the board of directors, and the non-party 2's testimony and the result of the non-party 4's personal examination of the witness were notified to the members of the lower court, and there is no evidence to recognize that the non-party 4's testimony or the person responsible for liaison of the general meeting of this case was actually conducted to the members.

Nevertheless, without properly examining this point, it was judged that the notice of convening an extraordinary general meeting of this case was legitimate on the ground that Nonparty 2 notified the person in charge of communication by telephone to the head of contact with each sub-party, and notified the person in charge of communication by directly notifying the head of contact with the head of contact with the party to which he belongs, and that the notice of convening an extraordinary general meeting of this case was issued by directly notifying the head of contact with the head of contact with the party to which he belongs. Thus, the judgment of the court below was erroneous in recognizing facts without any evidence or failing to exhaust all deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the judgment of the court below is not exempt from the reversal in this respect

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Justice)