The case holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in a separate lawsuit between the same parties was contrary to the rules of evidence, such as denying the decision, and taking views contrary to the decision, etc.

The evidence No. 5 is the Supreme Court decision in a lawsuit claiming the implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration against those who have completed registration of ownership preservation, etc. on real estate owned by the plaintiff species including the defendant, etc. in this case, and if the above decision recognizes the qualification to be a party and the representative of the plaintiff species, even though the above decision does not have any binding force in this case, it is clear that the above decision is a final and conclusive judgment in a lawsuit claiming the removal of the principal building and the transfer of land, and that the denial of the qualification to be a party representative of the plaintiff species and the representative of the plaintiff will affect the conclusion of the decision.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Attorney Kim Jong-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant from among the Pacific Papap-Sa Sin-Sari type

Defendant 1 and six Defendants’ limited professionals

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na415 delivered on September 7, 1984

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

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the Plaintiff’s Attorney are also collected.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is insufficient to say that the representative of the clan was appointed by the non-party 1 at the above clan meeting, and that the appointment of the clan was made lawfully in accordance with the prescribed procedures. In the appointment of the clan, the court below decided that the non-party 1 among the non-party 6 members of the clan was not the representative of the clan, and that the non-party 1 was not the representative of the clan nor the non-party 1 among the non-party 7 members of the clans who were appointed by the majority of the members present at the clans, and that the non-party 1 was not the representative of the clans, and that the non-party 1 was not the representative of the clans nor the non-party 1 among the non-party 4 members of the clans who were appointed by the non-party 1 at the time of the above clans meeting, and that the non-party 1 was not the representative of the clans nor the non-party 9 members of the clans which were the largest among the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 9.

In civil procedure, the court shall collect the purport of the lawsuit and the result of the examination of evidence from the court, which is not clear or obvious. On June 9, 1974, the court below recognized the non-party 3's right to demand the cancellation of the registration procedure against the non-party 1's representative, the non-party 1 and the non-party 4's right to demand the cancellation of the registration procedure against the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 31's non-party 1's non-party 1'

In this case, the consistent purport of the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 1 was the deceased non-party 2 and non-party 6, who were the deceased non-party 3 and non-party 4, at the time of convening the meeting of the deceased non-party 1 among the deceased non-party 4 and the non-party 6, who were the deceased non-party 3 and non-party 4, did not appear to have been able to communicate with the non-party 3 and the non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's.

The fact that the head of a clan does not have any rules or practices on the appointment of a head of the clan and the existing head of the clan, that is, the person who is the highest and the aged person, becomes the head of the clan or the door, is the consistent opinion of the party members (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da2199, Jan. 25, 197). Therefore, as determined by the court below, the non-party 2 was the deceased person of the plaintiff's head of the clan at the time of the council for the promotion of the plaintiff's species, and the plaintiff's head of the clan is the non-party 2, and the person who will be the head of the clan or door in the plaintiff's clan would be the non-party 2. Therefore, since the above promotional head of the plaintiff's clan called the above non-party 3 and the non-party 4 to delegate the procedures for the convening the head of the clan to the non-party 4 and the above promotional head of the clan shall not be deemed null and void since it did not go through due process.

Ultimately, the court below's decision that the above non-party 1, who is the representative of the plaintiff clan, denied the qualification of representative of the non-party 1 and that the lawsuit of this case was illegal by a person who is not qualified as representative, should be found to have violated the rules of evidence and found facts without any evidence and failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations by avoiding evidence judgment, and therefore there is an error of law not satisfying the reasons for the judgment. Therefore, the appeal is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)