[1] The meaning of a clan with its unique meaning

[2] The case holding that although the assertion about the character and substance of the Plaintiff organization is unclear, it can be viewed as a single clan organization as a whole from the time of institution of action

[1] A clan within its unique meaning does not require a special organization as a naturally occurring family member for the purpose of protecting the graves of a common ancestor and promoting friendship among the members of a clan, but it does not require a special organization. Among the descendants of a common ancestor, an adult male who has attained majority or older naturally becomes its members, and part of them cannot be arbitrarily excluded from its members. Thus, an organization consisting only of some of its members residing in a specific area is merely a similar organization of a clan and cannot become a clan within its unique meaning.

[2] The case holding that it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff did not properly distinguish the unique meaning of a clan from that of a similar clan, and that the plaintiff asserted that the scope of its members was different, and that there was some inappropriate argument about the nature and substance of the plaintiff's organization, but it was a non-family organization comprised of persons residing in a specific region from the beginning of the plaintiff's organization with the view of large snow, and that there was a change in its argument about its members, and that it does not lose the basic identity of the facts that the plaintiff is a similar clan

[1] Article 31 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 31 of the Civil Act, Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da15048 delivered on September 2, 1992 (Gong1992, 2964) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da5395 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1656) Supreme Court Decision 94Da41249 delivered on December 9, 197 (Gong1998Sang, 205) Supreme Court Decision 98Da5072 delivered on April 13, 199 (Gong199Sang, 864) (Gong199Sang, 199Ha, 1934)

Busan High Court Decision 2001Hun-Ga46 delivered on September 1, 201

Defendant 1 and five others

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na1538 delivered on February 11, 2000

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

1. The court below asserted that the plaintiff's organization is naturally composed of the clans with the aim of promoting mutual friendship while putting the 11th anniversary of the clan Kim Jong-man's 11 years old, the organizations of the plaintiff as the members of the clan of the same clan of the same clan of the same clan, which was 20 years old since the above Kim Jong-gun's 20 years old, for the first time in thischeon-gun, and its descendants as the joint clans of the same clans of this clans of this clans of this clans of this clans of this clans of this clans of this clans of this clans, their children, and their clans of this clans of this clans of this clans of this clans of this clans of this clans of this clans, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the clans of the same clans of this case were lost, and therefore, it is inappropriate to determine that the plaintiff's organization's alteration of the clans of this case's clans of this case's clans of this case's clans of this case's members after its alteration.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff's assertion about the nature of the plaintiff's organization is based only on the unique meaning of clan and there is no evidence to acknowledge its substance, and that the plaintiff's assertion that the nature of the plaintiff's organization is an organization similar to a clan brings about the result of the change of the party, and that it is not permissible

기록에 의하여 원고 단체의 성격에 관한 원고 주장의 변천 과정을 살펴보면, 원고는 ① 소장에서는, "원고 종중은 상산김씨 종중 중 20세 김항을 중시조로 하여 그 후손들로 구성된 종중이다."고 주장하면서도(기록 10면), 원고의 명칭은 '상산김씨 이천종중회'라고 하면서, 원고의 명칭을 '상산김씨 이천종중회'로 하여 등록번호를 부여받은 종중 등록번호등록증명서(갑 제5호증)을 제출하였다가, ② 이에 피고들이 원고 종중은 실재하지 않고 본 소송을 위하여 급조된 종중이라는 취지의 주장을 하자, 1998. 2. 12.자 준비서면에서는, "원고 종중은 대종중인 상산김씨 락성군파 종중 최초로 이천지역에서 터를 잡고 뿌리를 내린 20세 김항을 중시조로 한 후손들이 조상 대대로 매년 음력 10. 10.에 모여 이 사건 임야상에 설치된 중시조 김항과 그의 아들인 김동직, 김동급의 시제를 지내고 상호 친목을 도모할 목적으로 자연적으로 구성된 종중"이라고 주장하면서도(기록 94면), 같은 날자 '원고 표시 변경신청서'에서는 원고 명칭을 '상산김씨 이천종중회'에서 '상산김씨 락성군파 이천종중회'로 표시하고, 그 이유를 "상산김씨 락성군파 이천종중회와 상산김씨 이천종중회는 상산김씨 종중 중 20세 김항을 중시조로 하여 구성된 동일한 종중으로서, 원래부터 상산김씨 락성군파 이천종중이었는데, 실무자의 착오로 이중으로 상산김씨 이천종중회라는 명칭으로 등록해서 상산김씨 이천종중회는 등록말소될 처지에 있는 무효의 등록이므로 그 표시를 변경하고자 한다."고 주장하였고(기록 99면), 그 후 소집자의 명칭을 '상산김씨 이천종중회'로 하고, 소집 범위를 '이천근역 상산김씨'라고 기재하고 있는 원고 종중회의 소집통지문(갑 제10호증의 1 내지 11) 등을 증거로 제출하였다가, ③ 그 후 1998. 7. 2.자 준비서면에서, '원고 종중의 내력'이라는 제목으로, "원고 종중은 이 사건 임야상에 설묘된 김항 및 그의 아들인 김동직, 김동급의 후손들이 누대로 매년 음력 10. 10. 위 묘소를 찾아 시제를 지내면서 자연발생적으로 형성되어 내려오다가 1980년대에 들어서면서 임원을 선출하여 조직을 정비하였다."라고 다시 주장하였고(기록 175면), ④ 원고의 대표자 소외인이 적법한 대표자가 아니라는 이유로 원고의 소를 각하하는 1심판결이 선고된 후, 항소심에 들어와, 원고 종중회의 규약(갑 제18호증의 1)을 제출하였는데, 그 규약에는 원고 회원의 자격을 '이천근역 및 서울지역 거주 락성군 후손'으로 한정하는 취지로 규정되어 있었으며, ⑤ 그 후 원심법원이 원고의 명칭에 대하여 석명을 구하자, 1999. 4. 12.자 준비서면에서는 다시, "원고 종중의 정식 명칭은 상산김씨 락성군파 이천종중회인데, 종원들 누구나 락성군파에 속해 있음이 현저한 사실이어서, 편의상 이를 생략한 채 상산김씨 이천종중회라고도 표기했으므로, 둘 다 호칭되었으나 어떻게 호칭되든 그 실체는 하나의 종중이었다."고 주장하고(기록 389면), 위 1998. 2. 12.자 준비서면과 동일하게 원고 종중이 김항을 중시조로 한 후손들로 자연적으로 구성된 종중이라는 취지로 주장하였다가(기록 390면), ⑥ 피고들이 원고 종중의 실체 및 종중의 공동선조를 부인하고 원고 종중은 한성좌윤공의 후손들로 구성된 종중이라고 다투자, 1999. 9. 7.자 준비서면에서, "원고 종중은 주로 이천, 여주, 성남, 용인 등 지역을 중심으로 하여 거주하면서 위 연천공을 중시조로 하여 그 후손들로 구성된 종중이다. 한성좌윤공 후손으로 된 종중이 아니다."라는 취지로 주장을 일부 변경하였다가(기록 561 내지 562면), ⑦ 이에 피고가 다시 개개의 종원명부와 대조하면서 원고 단체에는 연천공의 후손이 아닌 구성원이 있다고 주장을 하자, 그 때서야 2000. 1. 6.자 준비서면에서, "원고 종중의 실체"라는 제목으로, "원고 종중은 상산김씨의 시조인 김수의 11세 손인 락성군파의 9세 후손 되는 20세 김항의 후손들을 중심으로 하여 경기 이천지역을 중심으로 한 기타 여주, 용인, 양평, 성남 등지에 거주하는 락성군파의 다른 후손들까지 참여하여 자연발생적으로 형성되어 온 종중이다. 따라서 김항의 후손들이 중심이 되기는 하였으나 오로지 김항의 후손들로만 구성된 종중이 아니다."(기록 767면)라고 주장한 사실을 알 수 있다.

According to the above facts, prior to the legal brief dated January 6, 200, the plaintiff asserted that only the descendants of the Socheon Kim Kim as if they were its members, and prior to the legal brief dated September 7, 1999, there is room to view that the plaintiff's organization made a claim as if it was a clan within its own meaning.

However, a clan within its unique meaning does not require a special organization as a naturally occurring family member for the purpose of protecting the graves of a common ancestor and promoting friendship among the members of a clan, but it does not require a special organization. Among the descendants of a common ancestor, an adult male who has attained majority or older naturally becomes its members, and part of the members cannot be arbitrarily excluded from their members. Thus, an organization whose members are only some of the members of a clan residing in a specific area is merely a similar organization of a clan and cannot be a clan of its unique meaning (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da15048 delivered on September 22, 192).

Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, although the plaintiff argued that it may be interpreted to the effect that it is a clan unique in this case, the plaintiff did not simply include the name of the plaintiff's organization as "Jinsung clan" or "Mincheon Dissolution" in the name of the plaintiff's organization, and it did not include the name of "Mincheon Dissolution" in the name of the plaintiff's organization, and it appears that only some members of the plaintiff's clan residing in a specific area are members of the same clan, and it can be easily recognized that the plaintiff's organization is a similar organization, not a clan unique in its own meaning, but a similar organization, and that the plaintiff's assertion that the scope of its members is not limited to the descendants of the plaintiff's clan, and that the plaintiff's assertion that the members of the plaintiff's organization were not limited to the descendants of the clan, and that there was no significant difference in its nature and substance from the beginning, and that it did not clearly state that the plaintiff's assertion that the members of the plaintiff's clan were non-specific in light of its own nature and its own nature.

Therefore, the court below determined that the plaintiff's assertion that a clan can not be allowed because there is no evidence that the plaintiff's organization's nature is a similar organization to a clan because it did not properly exercise its right to ask for the registration of a clan, or because it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the significance of a clan or a similar organization, or by failing to exhaust any deliberation by misunderstanding the parties' arguments, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal No. 1 pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, 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 Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)