(영문) 대구지방법원 2013.6.27.선고 2012가합13273 판결

1. The Defendant’s resolution on the special general meeting as of November 28, 2012 and the dismissal of the Plaintiffs from the Defendant’s executive officers, and the appointment of the Defendant as the Defendant’s president on December 13, 2012, regarding the sale of a violation of Article 6-1 forest of Geum-ri, Geumcheon-do, Geumcheon-do, Sejong-do, Geumcheon-do, and 6-2 forest of the same Risan 6-2 forest of the same Ri, 174m., confirm that the special general meeting resolution as of December 13, 2012 is invalid.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

(a) Occurrence, etc. of 00ccins in the presence of radio waves;

(1) The 11-year-old 11-year-old Macong, Song-young, Song-young, a Sindong, had been living in the area of Joseon Dynasty, and his descendants had been naturally formed by a clan who had been living in the area above, and had been living in the area above.

(2) The grandchildren in Song-Sa, the second grandchildren, the third grandchildren, the second grandchildren, the second grandchildren, the second grandchildren, the second grandchildren, the second grandchildren, the second grandchildren, the second grandchildren, the south of the Song-gu, the second grandchildren, the south of the Song-gu, the second grandchildren, the second grandchildren are the fluor, the second grandchildren are the fluor, and the second grandchildren are the fluor, the second grandchildren are the fluor, the second grandchildren are the fluor, the second grandchildren are the fluor of the Song-gu, the second fluor, the fluor of the Song-gu, the second fluor, the fluor of the Song-gu, the second grandchildren are the fluor, the second grandchildren are the fluor and the second grandchildren are the fluor of the 00 fluoral fluor.

(b) The general meeting of clans and the ownership of real estate;

(1) 경북 칠곡군 지천면 금호리 산 6-1 임야 259,934m, 같은 리 산 6-2 임야 3,174m(위 산 6-2 임야는 1930. 1. 27. 위 산 6-1 임야에서 분할되어 나왔고, 이하 양 토지를 합하여 '이 사건 부동산'이라 한다)는 1918. 4. 15. 송익순 외 6인의 공유로 사정되어 임야대장에 등재되었다가 1923. 11. 29. 송▣의 후손들인 송지정 외 12인의 공유로 재결되어 임야대장에 등재되었고, 그 중 경북 칠곡군 지천면 금호리 산 6-1 임야에 관하여 1964. 11. 21. 위 공유자들 또는 그 후손들의 공유로 부동산 소유권이전등기 등에 관한 특별조치법에 의하여 소유권보존등기가 경료되었다.

(2) Of the descendants of the Song-si, the 15 members among the descendants of the Song-si, the 15 members among the descendants of the Song-si, the Song-hee and the Song-hee were to hold a general meeting on April 5, 1993 to establish the clan Regulations, and completed the registration of the clan in the name of the defendant on September 27, 1993. At the time, the Song-hee, among the members of the clan, was elected as the chairperson of the defendant, and the clan Regulations (No. 5-6 of the evidence No. 5) enacted at this time set the defendant's qualification as the "a adult who is less than the part of the private peace."

(3) On April 26, 1994, the Defendant filed a registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (the registration of ownership transfer for the forest land of 6-1, Dog-ri, Dog-ri, Dog-ri, Dog-ri, Gyeongdong-do, and the registration of ownership preservation for the forest land of 6-2, such as Ri

(4) 그 후 송▣경의 후손인 송석주는 2000. 11. 23. 개최된 종중총회에서 피고의 회장으로 선출되었고, 송석준을 비롯한 종중원들(그 중 대다수는 송미경의 후손들이다)은 2009. 11. 19. 종중총회를 개최하여 송석준을 피고의 회장으로 선출하는 결의를 하였으며, 2011. 12. 11. 다시 종중총회를 개최하여 원고 1을 피고의 회장으로, 원고 2를 부회장으로, 원고 4, 5, 6을 이사로, 원고 3을 감사로 각 선출하는 결의를 하였다. 그 후 원고 1은 2012. 1. 16. 구미세무서장으로부터 자신을 대표자로 한 종중 고유번호증을 교부받았고, 2012. 12. 5. 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 피고의 대표자를 원고 1로 변경하는 등기명의인 표시변경등기를 하였다.

C. Disposition, etc. of the real estate of this case

(1) 그런데 송창의 후손인 송태의 주도로 2012. 11. 28. 송창의 후손들 중 참석자 18명, 위임자 11명 등 총 29명만이 출석한 가운데 임시총회를 개최하여 이 사건 부동산을 매각하기로 하는 결의를 하였고, 2012. 12. 13. 송창의 후손들 중 참석자 14명, 위임자 14명 등 총 28명만이 출석한 가운데 임시총회를 개최하여 원고 1을 피고의 회장에서, 원고 2를 부회장에서, 원고 4, 5, 6을 이사에서, 원고 3을 감사에서 각 해임하고, 송태를 피고의 회장으로 선임하는 결의(위 2012. 11. 28.자 결의와 합하여 이하 '이 사건 각 총회결의'라 통칭한다)를 하였는데, 당시 송▣경의 후손인 원고들에게는 위 각 임시총회 개최에 대한 소집통지가 전혀 이루어지지 않았다.

(2) 그 후 이 사건 각 총회결의에 따라 피고는 2012. 12. 13. 주식회사 진성 및 엠에스디앤씨 주식회사에게 이 사건 부동산을 매도하였고, 2012. 12. 14. 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 피고의 대표자를 원고 1에서 송▣태로 변경하는 등기명의인 표시변경등기를한 다음 주식회사 진성 및 엠에스디앤씨 주식회사에게 소유권이전등기를 경료하여 주었다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 7 through 11 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 16 and 17, the purport of the whole pleadings, and significant facts to party members

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs claim that the defendant is the descendants of the clan and the representative of the clan is 1. The defendant's clans that only the defendant's clans are the descendants of the clans, and that the defendant asserts that the defendant's clans are composed of only the descendants of the clans, and that most of the members of the clans including the plaintiffs voluntarily convened the general assembly of the clans and sell the real estate of this case, and that the plaintiffs dismissed the plaintiffs from the defendant's officers and appointed them as the chairperson of the defendant's general assembly of this case, and therefore, they claim that the resolution of each general assembly of this case held without proper authority is null

B. Defendant’s assertion

이에 대하여 송태 등은 피고가 송창의 후손들로만 구성된 종중이고 송▣를 공동선조로 하는 종중은 피고와는 별개의 종중인바, 이 사건 각 총회결의는 송창의 후 손들만을 대상으로 하여 적법하게 소집된 총회에서 이루어진 것이고, 송경의 후손인 원고들은 피고의 종중원이 될 수 없으므로, 원고들은 이 사건 각 총회결의의 무효를 구할 이익이 없어 이 사건 소는 부적법하고, 가사 이 사건 소가 적법하더라도 원고들의 위와 같은 주장은 받아들일 수 없다고 주장한다.

3. Determination on this safety defense

First, as to who the defendant's common ancestor is the defendant's common ancestor, the clan's members need not engage in a special organization as a naturally created organization for the purpose of protecting the graves of the same clan and promoting friendship among the members of the same clan, but there may be a little number of clans within the clan. Thus, in determining a specific clan and ascertaining its substance, it shall be the most important standard for whom the common ancestor's members of the clan shall be the defendant's 106Da14165, Oct. 25, 207, the following circumstances recognized by the above recognition and the evidence, namely, the real estate of this case was registered as the common ancestor's members of the clan 13,000 after its establishment on Nov. 29, 192, and the real estate of this case was registered as the common ancestor members of the same clan 14,000 after its establishment, and the real estate of this case was registered as the common ancestor members of the same clan 13,000 after its establishment.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case disputing the validity of the resolution of each general assembly of this case as the defendant's clan member that the plaintiffs who are descendants after the clan are the members of the defendant's clan as the joint mediation of the defendant's family, the defendant's defense of this case is without merit

4. Judgment on the merits

As to whether the resolution of each general meeting of this case is null and void, since the clan is a naturally created clan group composed of members for the purpose of protecting the graves of the common ancestor, promoting friendship among its members, etc., in light of the purpose and nature of the clan, it is reasonable to view the descendants who share the same clan with the common ancestor as their members naturally become its members when they reach majority (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Da1178, Jul. 21, 2005). The clan general meeting set forth the scope of the members of the clan, which are the subject of notification for convening a notification by the clan, and it is clear that they reside in Korea and are able to individually notify all the members of the family, thereby giving each person an opportunity to participate in the meeting, debate, and resolution, and the resolution of the general meeting of a clan held without a notification for convening a part of the clan is null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da34982, Sept. 6, 2007).

In light of the above legal principles, the resolution of each general assembly in this case is invalid because each of the above general assembly resolution in this case was held without a notice of convening a general assembly as a defendant's clan member, and each of the above general assembly resolution in this case was held without a notice of convening a general assembly for the plaintiffs who can be notified as the defendant's clan member, regardless of whether the resolution of each general assembly in this case was convened by the legitimate person authorized to convene a general assembly.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case seeking confirmation of invalidity of each resolution of the general assembly of this case as the defendant's clan member is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.