(a) Customs on the method to appoint the representative of a clan and for the convocation of a clan;

B. Whether the representative of a clan has a legitimate representation (affirmative)

C. Whether the court has a duty to urge correction of a representative indication in a case where it is found that a person who filed a lawsuit does not have the power to represent the representative (negative)

A. The appointment of a clan representative shall be in accordance with the rules or practices of the clan, and if not, the head of the clan or the head of the door shall convene a meeting of the clan and elect by a majority of the members of the clan, and if the head of the clan or the head of the door does not appoint the head of the clan or the head of the door, he shall convene a meeting of the clan as the head of the clan among the members of the clan. Therefore, the resolution of the clan convened by a non-authorized person shall not be valid.

(b) If it is doubtful whether the representative of a clan has legitimate representation, the court may conduct an ex officio investigation.

C. If it is found that there is no legitimate representative authority for a person who filed a lawsuit while carrying out the representative of a clan, the court has a duty to dismiss the lawsuit for this reason and to urge the clan to correct the indication of the representative.

(a)Article 48(b) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 124(c) of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Meu6102 delivered on April 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1040) (Gong1993, 445) 92Da18146 delivered on December 11, 1992 (Gong1993, 445) 91Da44902 delivered on January 26, 1993 (Gong1993, 847) B. Supreme Court Decision 76Da2199 delivered on January 25, 197 (Gong197, 9891) 87Da1915,1916 delivered on June 27, 1989 (Gong1989, 1132) 91Da21039 delivered on October 11, 191 (Gong1991, 2708)

Attorney Lee Dong-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellee among the species of the Dang-Jang-Jang-Jak

Plaintiff 2

Defendant 1 and four defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Appellant Young-Jin Kim, Attorney Kim Jin-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant and defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na453, 2654 decided Oct. 1, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

Each ground of appeal

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by the agent among the species of the lawsuit by the plaintiff Young-gu, Young-gu, Kim Young-chul.

A. On the first ground for appeal

The appointment of a clan representative shall be in accordance with the rules or practices of the clan, and if not, the head of the clan or the head of the door shall convene a meeting of the clan and be elected by a majority resolution from among the members of the clan. If the head of the clan or the head of the door does not appoint the head of the clan or the head of the door, among the members of the clan, he/she shall convene a meeting of the clan with the head of the family and the head of the clan. Therefore, the resolution of the clan convened by a non-authorized person shall be invalid and invalid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu6102, Apr.

The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff and the intervenor of the non-corporate clan were the same clan as only the name of the non-corporate clans, but they did not have the rules and representative of the clans, and even did not have the custom for the appointment of representative, and even they did not have the official name of the clans until 1988. The deceased non-party 1 had a high knowledge and moral reputation among the members of the clans in consultation with the members of the non-party 1, who had been in charge of the ordinary affairs of the clans. The decision of the general meeting of the non-party 2 convened on April 19, 192, convened by the non-party 3, which was convened by the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who was the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the name of the member of the non-corporate clans, and the above non-party 3, the representative of the non-party 4, who was not the representative of the non-party 198.

B. On the second ground for appeal

Since the non-party 4 was selected as the legitimate representative of the plaintiff clan at the general meeting of the non-party 2 convened by the non-party 2, who is the member of the plaintiff clan after the closure of argument at the court below, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in consideration of this, and even if the resolution was made as above, as long as the non-party 3 was appointed as the legitimate representative of the plaintiff clan, as seen above, as long as the non-party 3 was appointed as the representative of the non-party 3, the convening authority of the general meeting of the plaintiff clan is limited to only one person, and the above non-party 2 lost the convening authority of the general meeting of the plaintiff clan from

C. On the third ground for appeal

If there is doubt as to whether the representative of a clan has legitimate power of representation, the court may conduct an ex officio investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1915, 1916, Jun. 27, 1989). If the court below conducted an investigation with the materials submitted by the said clan on the ground that the party intervenor's assertion against whom the party's request for intervention was rejected was rejected, the decision of the court below is proper, and it is not unlawful, such as the theory of the lawsuit. The arguments are

D. On the fourth ground for appeal

If it is found that a court has no legitimate power of representation for a person who has filed a lawsuit while representing the representative of a clan, it shall be sufficient to dismiss the lawsuit for this reason, and there shall be no obligation to urge the correction of the indication of the representative to the clan. Therefore, the argument is without merit.

2. We examine the remaining Defendants’ agents’ grounds of appeal except Defendant 1.

The court below determined that the clan of this case has no legal representative until 1988, and there was no custom concerning its appointment, but the deceased non-party 1 has been engaged in the ordinary business of the clan in consultation with the members of the clan and its members, so even if the deceased non-party 1, who has no representative authority of the clan, agreed to transfer the land of this case to Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, which is the property of the same clan, on February 23, 1983, it is proper that the court below recognized that it has no validity against the plaintiff, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence that there was a misapprehension of the legal principles concerning the election of the clan representative according to the custom of the clan, such as the novel, or that there was no violation of the rules of evidence that erroneously erred in the reasoning or the preparation of evidence. The argument is without merit

3. We examine the grounds of appeal by an attorney of the parties concerned.

The theory of lawsuit contains the substance of filing a new lawsuit against the previous parties even if the request for intervention by the parties is unlawful, unless the intervenor of the party clearly expresses his/her intention to resolve the lawsuit in a single manner with the main lawsuit, it is more reasonable to combine it with the main lawsuit and to hold it in the form of ordinary co-litigation and for the economy of litigation, but it is also desirable for the court below to dismiss the request for intervention by the parties, and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the intervention by the parties, and it is not acceptable as an independent opinion.

4. Defendant 1’s appeal is examined.

Defendant 1 did not submit a statement of the grounds for appeal within a lawful period, and there is no statement of the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal, and the same Defendant’s appeal is without merit.

5. All appeals are dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against each losing appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.