[1] The case holding that although the general meeting of a clan consisting of not only the descendants of the clan Gap but also the descendants of the clan Byung, it shall be deemed that the general meeting was convened as the general meeting of the clan of the clan, even though the above general meeting was convened by the clans of Eul and only the members of the clan were present, it shall not be deemed that Eul is the general meeting of the clan, since there is no resolution that the general meeting elected Eul as the representative of the clan, and even if the members of the clan are the members of the clan, it does not have the right to represent the clan properties naturally, it does not have the right to represent the clan properties, and the lawsuit brought by the clans which was lawfully called after the lawsuit was brought by the clans, and it is unlawful to regard them as being brought by the non-representative of authority to represent the clans

[2] The case holding that a resolution at the general meeting of a clan held without convening a convocation to adult female clan members who can grasp their whereabouts and communicate shall be null and void

[1] Articles 31 and 59 of the Civil Act, Article 52 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 31 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Da9523 delivered on July 27, 1999 (Gong1999Ha, 1760) / [2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Da1178 delivered on July 21, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1326) Supreme Court Decision 208Da8898 Delivered on February 26, 2009

[Defendant-Appellee] The Head of Si/Gun/Gu Office (Law Firm Shinsung, Attorneys Lee Dong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant 1 and 8 others (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2009Na2569 decided October 28, 2009

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The court below determined that the non-party 4 was a legitimate representative of the plaintiff's clan, since the plaintiff was a clan consisting of the descendants of non-party 3 (OO), one of the children of non-party 2 (e.g., the non-party 3 (e., the non-party 4), one of the children of non-party 1's 26 years old descendants, who are the non-party 1-26 years old, elected the non-party 4 at the general meeting of September 13, 2004, which was convened and held by the non-party 4, the non-party 4. At the general meeting of the above clan, the non-party 4 withdrawn the form of convening the general meeting of the non-party 2, who is not the non-party 3's descendants, but the non-party 4 was a member of the plaintiff's clan, who was the non-party 3's members of the non-party 4, without the participation or involvement of other descendants.

2. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

가. 원심판결 이유와 기록에 의하면, ① 원고 종중은 1999년에 이 사건 소와 동일한 내용의 소를 제기하면서, 원고 중중은 소외 2의 후손들로 구성된 종중인데 소외 2의 세 아들인 소외 5( ○□), 소외 3, 6( □○) 중 소외 5, 6의 후손들은 절손되었고 소외 3만이 절손되지 아니하였으므로 원고 종중의 구성원들로는 소외 3의 후손들만이 남아 있으며, 1980. 6. 18. 종중 총회에서 소외 4를 대표자로 선출하였다고 주장한 사실, ② 위 소송은 대법원의 파기환송 판결을 거쳐 환송 후 항소심에서, 소외 2의 아들로 소외 7( △○), 소외 8( □), 소외 9( □△), 소외 10( ○△), 소외 11( △△), 소외 12( △▲) 중 전부 또는 일부가 더 있었고 그 아들들 중 일부는 절손되지 아니한 것으로 보이므로, 원고가 소외 2를 종중의 공동선조로 주장하는 이상 소외 3의 후손들만으로 소외 4를 종중 대표자로 선출한 1980. 6. 18.자 종중 총회의 결의는 소집통지 및 결의방법에 중대한 하자가 있어 무효이고, 소외 4는 종중을 대표하여 소를 제기할 권한이 없다는 취지의 소 각하 판결이 선고되었고, 2004. 6. 11. 대법원에서 상고가 기각됨으로써 위 판결이 최종적으로 확정된 사실, ③ 그러자 소외 4는 2004. 8.경 다시 종중 총회를 소집하면서, ‘ 소외 2의 후손에 해당하는 성년 이상의 남자’를 참석대상자로 한 통지서를 작성하여 소외 3의 후손들에게는 개별적으로 소집통지를 하는 한편, 소외 2의 다른 아들들의 후손들에 대하여는 일간신문을 통한 종중 총회 소집 공고만을 거친 후 2004. 9. 13. 소외 3 계열의 종중원들 중 일부인 13명만 참석한 가운데 종중 총회를 개최한 사실, ④ 위 종중 총회에서 종중원의 자격을 소외 3의 후손인 성년 남자로 하는 내용 등으로 종전의 종중규약을 개정하고 소외 4를 종중의 대표자로 선임하는 결의가 이루어진 사실, ⑤ 위 종중 총회 당시에는 소외 4가 원고 종중의 연고항존자였던 사실을 알 수 있다.

B. According to the above facts, the general meeting of the clan dated September 13, 2004 shall be deemed to have been convened not only for the plaintiff's descendants but also for the non-party 2's descendants, but also for the non-party 2's descendants as the general meeting of the clan. Although the above general meeting was convened by the non-party 4 who is the members of the plaintiff's clan and was present only for the members of the plaintiff's clan, it shall not be deemed to be the general meeting of the plaintiff's clan, it shall not be deemed to be the non-party 4 as the representative of the plaintiff's clan. In addition, even if the non-party 4 was the members of the clan, it is reasonable that the above general meeting does not have the effect of the resolution selecting the non-party 4 as the representative of the plaintiff's clan. In addition, even if the non-party 4 was the members of the clan, it does not have the right to represent the clan property naturally (refer to Supreme Court Decision 9Da9523 delivered on July 27, 199).

C. Meanwhile, according to the records, while the plaintiff clan attended the general meeting of the clan on April 26, 2007 (the same as the members of the clan who attended the general meeting of the above clan on September 13, 2004), it can be known that the plaintiff clan held the general meeting of the clan and passed a resolution to appoint non-party 4 as the members to act on behalf of the plaintiff clan. However, after the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Da1178 Decided July 21, 2005 was sentenced, it shall be deemed that the adult female who is the members of the joint clan is also the members of the clan. Thus, in the event that the plaintiff clan did not notify only the members of the clan at the general meeting of the above clan and did not notify the members of the female clan, the resolution at the general meeting of the clan shall be null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da898, Feb. 26, 2009). Thus, the above resolution cannot be seen as null and void for the notification to contact with the above clan general meeting of the majority.

D. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of the resolution of the general meeting of a clan and the appointment of the representative of a clan, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, even though it had maintained the first instance judgment dismissing the lawsuit in this case in the absence of such circumstances. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of the resolution of the general meeting of a clan and the appointment of the representative of a clan.

3. Conclusion

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)