[A] Whether Article 49 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the designated party is applied mutatis mutandis or analogically used to the non-contentious case (negative)

[2] Whether the designated party selected by more than 1/2 of the members of the Land Partition Adjustment Association is appropriate for an application for convening an extraordinary general meeting of the association members (negative)

A. In light of the relevant laws and regulations such as Articles 5, 8, 10, 24, and 30 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, the provisions of Article 49 of the Civil Procedure Act concerning the appointed party shall be deemed not to apply mutatis mutandis to the non-contentious case to which the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act applies.

B. Where a designated party selected by 1/2 or more of the members of the Land Partition Adjustment Association has applied for permission to convene a temporary general meeting of the members pursuant to Article 70(2) and (3) of the Civil Act and the articles of association of the said Land Partition Association, the selected party’s appointment of the appointed party is invalid because it is merely an act of the designated party’s own choice of the designated party, and the said application is inappropriate

Article 49 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 10 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Busan District Court Order 90Ra17 dated July 28, 1990

The reappeal is dismissed.

1. Judgment on the first ground for reappeal

In light of the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes such as Articles 5, 8, 10, 24, and 30 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, the provisions of Article 49 of the Civil Procedure Act concerning the appointed party shall not apply or apply mutatis mutandis to the non-contentious case to which the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act applies.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the re-appellant applied for permission to convene an extraordinary general meeting of the union members of this case pursuant to Articles 70 (2) and (3) of the Civil Code and Article 20 (3) of the Articles of the above Land Partition Association as the designated party with at least 1/2 of the members of the same sex zone land rearrangement association, which is the principal of this case, and the above union members selected as the designated party, and therefore, the above union members did not have any effect. Therefore, the application of this case is merely made solely by the re-appellant, and it is not illegal because it falls short of the fixed number of the application for permission to convene an extraordinary general meeting, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles

2. Judgment on the grounds of reappeal Nos. 2 through 4

All of the arguments do not accept all of the arguments, because the court below erred in the judgment on the assumption that the act of the captain of the re-appellant as the designated party is effective as a family or additional.

3. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.