Whether a representative appointed by the general meeting of a clan held by an unauthorized person has the qualification for the representative of the clan;

The general meeting of a clan shall be convened by its representative, and the general meeting of a clan convened by a non-representative of the general meeting of a clan shall be convened at all by a person who is not the representative, and it shall not be recognized legally as constituting the general meeting of a clan. Therefore, the resolution on the appointment of a representative to be convened at the general meeting shall not be deemed non-existent, and the representative appointed by that resolution shall not be

Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff clan

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (65Ga5588) in the first instance trial

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by Nonparty 1.

The plaintiff (Appellant)'s attorney shall revoke the original judgment. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff 400 Gazon's 100 Gazon's 400 Gazon and shall pay to the plaintiff 1,600 Gazon's Gazon's Gaon's Ga

The court costs are assessed against all of the defendants in the first and second instances, and the judgment of provisional execution was sought.

First, it is examined whether Nonparty 1 has the authority to represent the Plaintiff’s clan ex officio.

The court below's testimony 7 (Notice) 1, 3-1 through 5 (Notice) and 1, 4-1, and 2 (Notice), each of the testimony and arguments of non-party 2, non-party 4 and non-party 5 (excluding non-party 4 and non-party 5's testimony) which can be recognized as authentic by non-party 2's testimony, and the non-party 18's testimony and arguments of the non-party 2, non-party 4 and the non-party 5's non-party 4 (excluding the non-party 4 and the non-party 5's testimony) which are non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 4 and the non-party 2's non-party 1, the non-party 5's testimony and the non-party 16's non-party 4, each of the defendant 16's clan.

However, the general meeting of a clan shall be convened by its representative, and the general meeting of a clan convened by non-representatives of the general meeting of a clan is convened by the non-representatives of the general meeting of a clan, and its legal establishment shall not be recognized. Thus, the resolution of which non-party 1 was appointed from each of the above clans on April 12, 1965 and April 23, 1966 as the representative cannot be recognized as its establishment under the law as the general meeting convened by non-exclusives of the general meeting, and the non-party 1, who was appointed as the representative pursuant to the resolution, shall not be deemed non-existent, and there is no authority to represent

The plaintiff's representative asserted that even if the non-authorized person calls for a clan general meeting, the defendant's defendant was present at the general meeting on April 23, 1966 and confirmed it by participating in the resolution. However, even if the defendant appeared at the above clan general meeting convened by the non-authorized person and participated in the resolution, it cannot be deemed that the above clan general meeting convened by the non-authorized person was cured and valid. Thus, the above argument cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the principal lawsuit is unlawful because it is filed by a person who is not qualified as the representative of the plaintiff clan, and thus, it shall be dismissed. This purport of the original judgment is reasonable, and since the appeal is without merit, it is dismissed by Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 99 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Cho Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)