(a) Where it is not a clan of its unique meaning but an organization is recognized;

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that it failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations in determining whether an unincorporated association that has no legal capacity, separate from the original clan, has been an entity as a clan organization.

A. Although a clan consisting solely of residents in a specific area or persons within a specific scope among the descendants of the joint ancestor, if it is possible to recognize the substance as an organization because it constitutes an organization for the protection of graves, religious services and friendship only with residents in a specific area or persons within a specific scope, it is likely to recognize the organization as an unincorporated association even though it does not have its original meaning.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that it failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations in determining whether the door, which is a clan group, as an unincorporated association separate from the original clan, has the substance of an organization.

Article 31 of the Civil Act, Articles 48, 183, and 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Manyang-Jak-Jak-Jakaks

Park Jung-dae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Daegu District Court Decision 89Na563 delivered on June 13, 1990

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daegu District Court Panel Division.

1. We examine the Defendants’ legal representative’ ground of appeal No. 1

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendants' assertion that the plaintiff's representative was authorized to represent the plaintiff's text of the lawsuit of this case in the door-to-date meeting duly called in the name of the plaintiff's descendants through the central bulletin and daily examination of October 16, 1988, and the plaintiff's representative's bombs were composed of those who resided or resided near the real estate of this case or those who participated in the demonstration of the grave of this case. The plaintiff's bombs in relation to the bombs on behalf of the bombs, managed the bombs on the bombs, managed the bombs on behalf of the bombs, and consulted on the property management on the bombs on the bombs of the above bombs and the bombs of the plaintiff's representative's bombs.

(2) The original clan is a naturally created clan organization formed by descendants of the common ancestor for the purpose of protecting the graves of the ancestor and promoting friendship among descendants, and is established by their descendants at the same time as the death of the ancestor. Thus, a clan consisting solely of residents of a specific area or persons within a specific scope among descendants, cannot be a member of the clan. However, if a clan is formed solely by residents of a specific area or persons within a specific scope for the purpose of protecting the graves of the ancestor and conducting religious services and promoting friendship, it may be possible to recognize the organization as an unincorporated association, unless it has its original meaning, if it is possible to recognize its substance as such organization.

According to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff's door is a door consisting of residents and participants in the present real estate among the descendants of the Bacheon-ro's window, which is a joint ancestor, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's door is an original clan naturally formed by descendants of the Macheon-ro's windowm. Accordingly, the court below found the plaintiff's door as a clan of an association with no ability to have a right, separate from the original clan.

However, in the testimony of the court of first instance, the witness Park Jong-won, employed by the court below, stated that the descendants living near the location of the real estate of this case, among the descendants of the Lee Jong-cheon's Chang-chul, the plaintiff's door was naturally created by gathering them. On the other hand, the plaintiff's co-help in the plaintiff's door, which is the 8th sex loan (referred to the evidence No. 7-2, the sex loan is a son of the original book), and if the evidence No. 15 is written without dispute over its establishment, the above Park Jong-won used for the plaintiff's door consists of the plaintiff's door Kim Jong-cheon District Court 87Gahap67 case's litigation, and it is written that the plaintiff's door does not have a meeting minutes, and the plaintiff's letter No. 21 and the evidence No. 22, which was submitted as the minutes of the plaintiff's door's meeting and the notice of convening the meeting, and the plaintiff's door No. 15, which is an association's right to attend.

Although the court below should have examined the probative value of the above evidence more and judged the plaintiff's substance, the court below committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment through the determination of erroneous evidence and the incomplete hearing.

(3) In addition, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff's door has a right to represent the door and execute its duties among the plaintiffs' door, but there is only a statement that "the plaintiff's door has been left for a long time and has been in the door as a representative of the door and has been in charge of the door-to-door property, etc." among the testimony of the court of first instance for the Park Jong-won as evidence. According to the evidence No. 24-2 and No. 6 of the evidence No. 24-2 and no dispute over the establishment, the above Park Jong-won stated that he testified that he was in the name of the paper-to-be, and that he was in charge of property management. In light of this, the testimony of the above Park Jong-won was insufficient to believe that it is, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact that the representative of the plaintiff's door has been in the custom-to-beson. In this regard, the judgment of the court below also did not err in finding the facts without legitimate evidence.

2. Therefore, without examining other grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)