Whether the defect in the procedure of convening a clan convened by a person without authority to convene a clan is cured only by attending the general meeting and failing to raise any objection to the convocation of the general meeting.

Even though a general meeting is called by a person without the authority to convene a general meeting, if the person with authority to convene the general meeting agrees to do so and the person without authority to convene the general meeting, it cannot be deemed that the person with authority to convene the general meeting is the person with no authority to convene the general meeting, but the person with authority to convene the general meeting did not raise any objection to the convocation of the general meeting or the appointment of the representative, and it cannot be said that the general meeting is convened by the consent of the person with authority to convene the general meeting or that

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

Supreme Court Decision 82Da42439 delivered on February 8, 1983 (Gong1983,504) (Gong1983,504) Decided October 22, 1985 (Gong1985,1538), Supreme Court Decision 92Da42439 delivered on March 9, 193 (Gong152)

1. The Head of Si/Gun/Gu Office

Defendant-Appellant Park Jae-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Changwon District Court Decision 91Na4045 delivered on July 30, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Since the resolution of the clan general meeting for the appointment of a clan is required to be valid, if the general meeting is not convened by a legitimate convening authority, a resolution for the enactment of the clan rules or for the appointment of a representative made at the above general meeting shall not be effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da28542, Nov. 13, 1990; 92Da34124, Nov. 27, 1992).

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the special meeting of April 6, 1986 of the plaintiff clan was originally held in the same purport that the non-party 1, non-party 2, non-party 3, and non-party 4, not the non-party 6 who is the non-party 5 or non-party 6 who is the non-party 6 who is the non-party 5 or the non-party 6 who is the non-party 6 who is the non-party 6's member of the clan, and therefore, it is deemed that the non-party 1 cannot be deemed a legitimate representative because the non-party 1 newly established at the above general meeting or the non-party 1 newly appointed as the non-party 1 as the representative of the clan pursuant to the above general meeting was not the non-party 6's member of the clan.

Even if a general meeting is called by a person without the authority to convene a general meeting, if the person without the authority to convene the meeting agrees to convene the general meeting, it shall not be deemed to be a convocation by the person without the authority to convene the general meeting (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Da2396, Feb. 8, 1983; 83Da2397, Oct. 22, 1985). However, the court below's determination that the person without the authority to convene the general meeting attended the general meeting by a person without the authority to convene the general meeting and did not raise any objection as to the convocation of the general meeting or the appointment of a representative cannot be said to be a member (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da42439, Mar. 9, 193). Thus, the court below's determination that the above non-party 5, a legitimate representative of the plaintiff clan, delegated the voting rights, etc. at the above general meeting cannot be viewed to be a non-party 5.

2. In the absence of the rules or practice of a clan, a call-up by the general meeting of a clan requires the convening authority to notify all adult males or older who have been residing in the Republic of Korea and who are able to communicate with the members of the clan, and the resolution of a clan meeting held without the above call-up notice to some members (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da43862, Mar. 10, 1992; 92Da34124, Nov. 27, 1992).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that, in the case of which it is not recognized that there are any rules or customs on the method of convening the general meeting of the plaintiff clan, the above general meeting was not legitimate in this regard, and therefore, it is judged that the enactment of the clan rules or the resolution for the appointment of the representative of the clan is null and void, and that the above evidence and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable in light of the records, since the testimony portion of the non-party 5 witness and the contents of Gap evidence 16-6, Gap evidence 17-1, and 3 are not sufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to prove it. Thus, since the above general meeting of the plaintiff clan is not recognized to have any specific rules or customs on the method of convening the general meeting of the plaintiff clan, the above general meeting of the plaintiff clan does not go through legitimate convening procedure, and therefore, the enactment of the clan rules or the resolution for the appointment of the representative of the clan is null and void.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

On the second ground for appeal

Since the defendant expressed his intention to the enactment of the clan rules decided by the general meeting of the plaintiff's clan on April 6, 1986 on his behalf, it is not permissible under the principle of good faith to dispute the validity of the above clan rules on the ground that 7 years have passed since it was defective in the procedures for convening the general meeting since the above clan rules have been enforced as the clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's non-party 6 (Delegation) and it is reasonable to view that even if there was a defect in the procedures for its establishment, it has already been ratified by all the members of the court as a legitimate clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's non-party 7's representative, and there is no objective reason to recognize the existence of the facts such as Gap's No. 6 (Delegation).

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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)