(a) Whether there is a party ability of “school dong” in the case where the land cadastre contains a specific property under the name of “school dong”, which was an unincorporated association, but it is currently impossible to recognize the substance as an association (affirmative);

B. Measures to be taken by the court in the event that the plaintiff has mistakenly indicated the representative of the defendant's non-corporate association's "school building" in filing a lawsuit

A. If a certain land was under the name of “School Dong” at the time of the assessment by the Ordinance on Land Survey, barring any special circumstance, its school principal shall be deemed as not merely an administrative district, but a non-corporate association consisting of residents living in its administrative district, and having the community using the same name as the administrative district, barring any special circumstance. Moreover, even if there is no real circumstance to recognize it as an entity as a non-corporate association because there is no resident decision-making institution, business execution institution or representative as an unincorporated association due to changes in social conditions, etc., if it is still written on the land cadastre as it is deemed that there is a specific property in the name of the community, as long as it is entered in the land cadastre, it shall be deemed that the community continues to exist as an unincorporated association as it continues to exist as a non-corporate association.

B. In the filing of the lawsuit by the plaintiffs, the court should not immediately dismiss the representative of the defendant, an association which is not a juristic person with the capacity to be a party, on the ground that the lawsuit is unlawful, but the court should have ordered the plaintiffs to correct the deficiency by correcting the representative of the defendant, who is indicated in the complaint, as a person with the authority to legitimately represent the defendant, and then have the defendant correct the deficiency, and serve the legitimate representative of the defendant with a copy of the complaint as a result of the correction, and have the plaintiff participated in the lawsuit and proceed with the litigation, and then have deliberated and judged on the propriety of the claim.

(a) Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act. Article 31 of the Civil Act. Article 231 of the Civil Procedure Act

A.Supreme Court Decision 90Meu8692 decided Jun. 26, 1990 (Gong1990, 1578)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

School principal Dong-dong

Busan District Court Decision 90Na827 delivered on July 6, 1990

The judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

If the plaintiff's school principal as the defendant in the lawsuit of this case refers to the "Dong", which is one of the administrative organizations, it is merely a subordinate organization of the Si/Gun/Gu, which is a local government under the Local Autonomy Act, and thus, it cannot be recognized as a party to the lawsuit. If the principal's school principal refers to an unincorporated association or foundation under Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is composed of residents living in the administrative district, the court below should first recognize the existence of an unincorporated association or foundation with the title, and in this case, there is no evidence to prove the existence of such organization, and even if the defendant is deemed an unincorporated association or foundation, the head of the Dong whose representative is the defendant is a non-corporate association or foundation is merely an administrative agency, and since there is no evidence to recognize him as the representative in accordance with the defendant's rules and regulations, the lawsuit of this case is brought against the non-corporate association or foundation, and thus, it is unlawful and dismissed the judgment of the court of first instance which admitted the plaintiff's claim.

However, as recognized by the court below, if the land of this case, which the plaintiffs purchased from the defendant or claimed for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership by asserting that it had been acquired by prescription, was in the name of "school Dong" at the time of the circumstances under the Land Investigation Decree, such school Dong shall not be deemed a mere administrative district, but a non-corporate association consisting of residents within the administrative district, and a community using the same name as the administrative district is a community (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu8692, Jun. 26, 1990). Thus, even if the long period of time has passed, and social conditions have changed and it has not been actually recognized as an entity as a non-corporate decision-making body, business execution institution, and an association which is not a juristic person and has no representative, and if it is shown in the land cadastre land cadastre under the name of the community, if there is still a specific property in the name of the community, it shall be deemed that it continues to exist as an association, not a juristic person.

In addition, as long as the plaintiffs should be seen as an unincorporated association which has the capacity to represent the defendant in the lawsuit of this case, the court should not immediately dismiss the lawsuit of this case on the ground that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful, but shall order the plaintiffs to correct the defects by correcting the defects (if there is no authority to legitimately represent the defendant, the plaintiffs may apply for the appointment of a special representative pursuant to Articles 60 and 58 of the Civil Procedure Act). Accordingly, upon the correction, the court must serve a copy of the complaint to the legitimate representative of the defendant and have him participate in the lawsuit, and should have deliberated on the propriety of the claim of this case. Nevertheless, the court below should have determined that the lawsuit of this case was instituted against a person who has no capacity to represent the parties or a person who has no legitimate power to represent the defendant. The court below rejected the lawsuit of this case on the ground that the correction of defects in the representative's right to represent the defendant's remaining, and without examining the legal principles as to the association of this case, it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

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

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)