In a case where the plaintiff's clan recognizes that the resolution of the council of the plaintiff's clan is valid as the resolution of the plaintiff's clan, and the above resolution is asserted that the title trust agreement that was made by the above resolution is valid, and the above resolution is unlawful as the resolution of the plaintiff's clan, and the measure rejecting the plaintiff's claim on the ground that it

In a case where the plaintiff's clan recognizes that the resolution of the plaintiff's clan was valid as the resolution of the plaintiff's clan, and where the plaintiff's clan filed a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration on the ground of termination of the trust by asserting that the title trust agreement that was made by the above resolution was valid, even though the resolution at the above meeting was not valid, it may be deemed that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit on the premise that it is ratified, or that it was implicitly ratified by the above lawsuit, or that it was ratified by the above lawsuit, even though the above resolution was unlawful as a resolution of the plaintiff's clan, it was erroneous in the judgment of the court below that rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that it was unlawful, and it did not have

Article 139 of the Civil Act, Articles 183, 188, and 193(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Defendant-Appellant Park Jin-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 89Na33410 delivered on October 19, 1990

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below

A. On Oct. 13, 1966, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the part of the deceased non-party 1 on Jan. 18, 1927, the forest land listed in the annexed Table 1 (name 1 omitted) in the annexed Table 1 of the judgment of the court below, and on Oct. 13, 1966, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the part of the defendant with respect to one half of the shares in the name of the defendant, and the remaining one half shares were completed on Dec. 9, 1970, and the ownership transfer registration was completed on the part of the defendant on Dec. 2, 1970, and the forest listed in the annexed Table 2 [name 2 omitted] in the annexed Table 2 of the judgment of the court below, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 30, 1971 in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Ownership.

B. On December 10, 1945, the forest land listed in the same list 1 was registered in title with the above non-party 1, who is the son of the plaintiff race. After his death on December 10, 1945, the defendant knew that the above non-party 1 was granted permission for felling the forest land, and the defendant obtained each share transfer registration under the above name of the defendant. Since the forest listed in the same list 2 is owned by the plaintiff race, the defendant is also owned by the plaintiff race, and the registration of ownership transfer is completed on the ground of the defendant's false guarantor. After being aware of it and discussed the issue of returning each illegal registration, the forest land mentioned in the above list 1 is confirmed to be trusted in title with the defendant among the plaintiff races, and the defendant also agreed to the registration title as the joint name of the defendant and the clan representative, and the defendant agreed to the above registration of ownership transfer as to the plaintiff's above registration of title transfer.

C. On February 22, 1978, a meeting of the above person cannot be deemed as a meeting of the plaintiff Sejong, and rather, it is deemed that the meeting was a separate meeting consisting of a part of the descendants from among the descendants making the joint line of the "tin" of the joint line of the plaintiff Sejong, and thus, it rejected the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the above meeting was a meeting of the plaintiff Sejong and the agreement to title trust the above forest to the defendant was made between the plaintiff Sejong and the defendant, and that there is no need to examine further.

2. Examining the record, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the above meeting of February 22, 1978 cannot be viewed as a legitimate meeting of the plaintiff's race.

However, among the plaintiffs, the above resolution of the plaintiff's meeting on February 22, 198 is valid as a resolution of the plaintiff's end, and the title trust agreement with the defendant, which was based on this resolution, is also valid, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is filed on February 22, 1978. Thus, even if the resolution made at the meeting of the plaintiff on February 22, 1978 or the agreement on title trust with the defendant, which was based on this resolution, was not effective, it can be deemed that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on the premise of ratification, or that it was impliedly ratified by the lawsuit of this case, and further, Article 14 of the Code (Evidence A7) of the plaintiff's text of this case shall also be seen as "the letter delivered before and after February 22, 1978 shall be ratified."

3. Therefore, the court below made it clear whether the plaintiff's claim of this case in this case is valid as the resolution of the plaintiff clan, or even if the above resolution is deemed unlawful as a resolution of the plaintiff clan, the court below made it clear whether the plaintiff's member asserts that the title trust contract with the defendant is valid by ratification of the above resolution. If the plaintiff's member ratified the above resolution, it should examine and confirm the validity of ratification, whether there was a title trust contract with the plaintiff's head, and then determine the validity of the plaintiff's claim. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim only on the ground that the plaintiff's resolution of February 28, 1977 cannot be seen as the plaintiff's meeting without reaching this point, on the ground that the court below erred in understanding the purport of the plaintiff's argument, or in understanding the purport of the plaintiff's claim, it is reasonable or unreasonable to reverse the judgment without merit. The arguments are justified within this scope.

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

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)