[1] Measures to be taken by the court for determining the existence of a party capacity, and whether an organization can be admitted as a party capacity by recognizing the substance of an organization entirely different from the party’s assertion (negative)

[2] Whether it is permissible for the Plaintiff to change the fact about the substance of a clan within its own meaning differently from the initial argument (negative) and the measures to be taken by the court in this case

[3] Whether a claim to change a common ancestor of a clan constitutes a change of a party (affirmative)

[4] The meaning of a clan with its unique meaning

[1] The issue of party capacity is a matter of ex officio investigation by the court. Thus, the court should investigate ex officio the facts which form the premise for the party capacity judgment without being bound by the parties' arguments. However, in determining the party capacity based on such facts, if an organization with such meaning as the purpose, organization, members, etc. of an organization with the elements to define the organization as a social entity exists, it is sufficient that the party capacity in the lawsuit is satisfied. If it is not so, it is sufficient that the lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed, and it is sufficient to recognize the party capacity by recognizing the substance of an organization entirely different from the parties' arguments, and it is not permissible as a result of changing the party.

[2] If the plaintiff is a clan with its own own meaning and the basic identity of factual relations asserted as to its substance is maintained, it does not constitute a party's change and the court may evaluate differently the legal nature of the clan according to its substance. However, if the plaintiff is a clan with its own meaning and the plaintiff changes facts about its substance, such as the scope of its members, differently from the initial argument, it shall bring about the result of the party's change, and it shall not be permitted. Thus, the court shall judge whether the plaintiff has lost a clan as originally asserted, and if the same clan has not been lost, it shall be dismissed as it is unlawful and unlawful, and it shall not be recognized as the plaintiff on the ground that the clan has been lost according to the changed argument.

[3] A clan's specific clan is established according to who is the common ancestor who is a member of the clan and the scope of the members of the clan can be determined based on this, and therefore, a clan, which differs from the common ancestor, has a separate entity different from the members of the clan, so it is not permissible to change the common ancestor of the clan asserted by the plaintiff as it brings about the result of the change of the parties.

[4] The unique meaning of a clan does not require a special organization as a naturally occurring family member for the purpose of protecting the graves of a common ancestor and promoting friendship among the members of a clan, but it does not require a special organization. Among the descendants of a common ancestor, the descendants of an adult male or higher naturally become its members, and part of them cannot be arbitrarily excluded from their members. Thus, a part of the clan residing in a specific area or an organization consisting only of the members of a specific clan shall not be a clan similar to that of a clan and shall not be a clan of its unique meaning.

[1] Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 31 of the Civil Act, Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 31 of the Civil Act, Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act / [4] Article 31 of the Civil Act, Article

[1] [3] Supreme Court Decision 98Da50722 delivered on April 13, 1999 (Gong1999Sang, 864) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da41249 delivered on December 9, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 205) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da5395 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1656), Supreme Court Decision 99Da1428 delivered on August 24, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1934) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 96Da32850 delivered on November 26, 199 (Gong197, 697Sang, 197) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da42982 delivered on April 29, 1992

○○○ ○○ △△ Party (Attorney Lee Dong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and six others (Attorneys O Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2000Na6061 delivered on December 14, 2001

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

1. Summary of the judgment below

원심은, 원고 단체는 ○○○○ △△△의 후손들 중 △△△의 12세손 소외 1(소외 1), 13세손 소외 2(소외 2), 14세손 소외 3(소외 3), 15세손 소외 4(소외 4)를 공통 조상으로 하여(위 소외 1로부터 소외 4까지는 독자로 이어져 왔다), 소외 4의 아들들인 소외 5, 소외 6, 소외 7, 소외 8의 자손들로 구성된 종중으로서, 충남 청양군 정산면 내초리와 같은 군 대치면 광금리 등지에서 집성촌을 이루고 살던 위 소외 4의 후손들이 위 소외 1, 소외 2, 소외 3, 소외 4의 봉제사와 분묘관리 및 후손 상호간의 유대 및 친목 등을 목적으로 매년 추석 무렵에 시향을 지내고 그 시향에 참석한 후손들의 결의로 제반 종사를 처리하여 오면서 자연발생적으로 형성된 종족집단인 사실, 그런데 원고 종중은 그 종중 모임이 제대로 이루어지지 않다가 1988. 5. 14.경 위 종중원들 중 호경 호(호)자 돌림을 쓰는 성인 기혼 남자들을 중심으로 "호경회"가 조직되어 종중일을 주도적으로 처리하기 시작하였으며, 그러던 중 1997. 11. 10. 종원인 소외 9의 집에서 창립총회를 열어 회장단 선임과 규약제정 등 구체적인 조직행위를 하고, 종중의 명칭을 당시의 돌림자인 '환', '재', '호'를 따서 "○○○○△△△파□□□회"로 하여 1997. 11. 20. 종중등록까지 마친 사실, 충남 청양군 (주소 1 생략) 전 3,557㎡(이하 '이 사건 제1부동산'이라고 한다)는 원고 종중의 종원들이 대를 이어 충남 청양군 장평면 적곡리 및 청양군 정산면 내초리 일대에 거주하면서 선대로부터 물려받은 위토답으로서, 1910년대에 △△△의 17세손인 소외 10에게 명의를 신탁하여 사정받은 토지인데, 계속 미등기 상태로 있다가, 1981년경 원고 종중이 당시 시행 중이던 부동산소유권이전등기에관한특별조치법에 따라 등기를 경료하기로 하면서 그 소유 명의를 망 소외 11, 소외 12와 소외 13의 3인에게 신탁하여 소유권이전등기를 경료한 사실, 그런데 1993. 12. 23.경 소외 11의 아들인 피고 1이 이 사건 제1부동산의 명의인인 소외 11, 소외 13, 소외 12로부터 위 부동산을 매수한 일이 없음에도 1983. 9. 3.자로 위 공유자들로부터 이 사건 제1부동산을 매수하였다는 허위보증서를 작성, 당시 시행되던 부동산소유권이전등기에관한특별조치법에 따라 피고 1 명의로의 소유권이전등기를 경료한 사실, 그리고 충남 청양군 (주소 2 생략) 임야 813㎡(이하 '이 사건 제2부동산'이라고 한다)는 원래 충남 청양군 정산면 내초리 새마을회가 소유하던 충남 청양군 (주소 3 생략) 임야 403,908㎡에 포함되어 있던 토지인데, 위 토지 위에 원고 종중의 공동선조인 소외 1, 소외 2, 소외 3의 묘와 소외 13의 증조모 및 조부모(소외 14)의 묘, 소외 15의 조부모(소외 16)의 묘 등 묘소 6기가 설치되어 있어 1990. 4. 10.경 위 새마을회가 위 임야를 매도하면서 위 부동산에 흩어져 있는 묘소를 이장할 수 있도록 일부를 분할하여 원고 종중에게 증여한 것인데, 원고 종중은 당시 새마을회로부터 증여받은 이 사건 제2부동산을 호경회에서 마련하여 보관하고 있던 회비를 등기비용 등으로 지출하여 종중의 종손에 해당하는 망 소외 11에게 명의신탁하여 소외 11 명의의 소유권이전등기가 경료된 사실을 인정한 다음, 원고 종중은 친목단체에 불과하여 종중으로서의 실체가 없으므로 이 사건 소는 부적법하다는 취지의 피고들의 본안전 항변에 대하여 원고 종중은 ○○○○ △△△의 12세손 소외 1, 13세손 소외 2, 14세손 소외 3, 15세손 소외 4의 후손들에 의하여 자연발생적으로 형성된 종족집단인 사실이 인정되므로, 비록 원고 종중의 활동이 제대로 되지 않아 1997. 11. 10. 일부의 종원들이 창립총회를 열어 종회 규약을 마련하고, 종중의 명칭을 "○○○○ △△△파 □□□회"로 하였으며, 2000. 1. 14.에야 비로소 전체 종원 총회에서 위 창립총회의 결의가 추인되었다고 하더라도 그 실체는 공동선조를 소외 1, 소외 2, 소외 3, 소외 4로 한 후손들의 종족집단으로서 원고 종중은 그 명칭 여하에 불구하고 그 실체의 동일성을 유지하고 있다고 보아야 한다는 이유로 본안전 항변을 배척하고, 본안에 나아가, 위 인정 사실에 의하면, 이 사건 제1부동산에 관한 원고와 망 소외 11 및 망 소외 12 사이의 명의신탁관계 및 이 사건 제2부동산에 관한 원고와 망 소외 11 사이의 명의신탁관계는 모두 이 사건 소장부본의 송달로써 해지되었다고 할 것이므로, 피고들은 각 소장부본 송달일자 명의신탁해지를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기절차를 이행할 의무가 있고, 한편, 이 사건 제1부동산에 관하여 부동산소유권이전등기에관한특별조치법에 의해 피고 1 명의로 경료된 위 소유권이전등기는 허위보증서에 터잡아 이루어진 것으로서 무효라고 할 것이므로, 위 피고는 나머지 피고들을 대위하여 구하는 원고에게 위 소유권이전등기의 말소등기절차를 이행할 의무가 있다고 판단하여 원고의 피고들에 대한 청구를 모두 인용하였다.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. First of all, the Plaintiff changed the common ancestor even in the assertion that the Plaintiff was a clan with its own meaning and that it was a clan with its own meaning. Therefore, the Plaintiff first examined this point.

The issue of the capacity of the parties is an ex officio investigation of the court, and the court should investigate ex officio the facts that form the premise for the capacity of the parties to the clan. However, in determining the existence of the parties to the clan based on such facts, if an organization with the elements of establishing a clan as a social entity, such as the objectives, organization, and members of the organization, exists, it shall satisfy the capacity of the parties to the clan. If such organization is lost, it shall be inappropriate for the lawsuit to be dismissed, and it shall not be permitted to recognize the capacity of the parties to the clan as a result of changing the parties (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da5072, Apr. 13, 199). If the plaintiff asserts that it is the original meaning of his own clan and the basic identity of the facts concerning the clan is maintained, it shall not be deemed that the plaintiff is a common entity of the clan because it is not a party to the clan, and thus, it shall not be deemed that it is a change within the scope of the original meaning of the clan, and it shall not be deemed that the plaintiff is a new entity of the clan.

However, according to the records, the plaintiff asserted that "the plaintiff is a clan established by the descendants of ○○○○○○ △△△ Party." However, on April 16, 199, "the plaintiff is 17 years old," "the 26th "the 18 years old," "the 19 years old," "the 19 years old," "the 19 years old," "the 28 years old," "the 19 years old," "the 19 years old," "the 19 years old," "the 19 years old," "the 20 years old," "the 10 years old, the 10 years old, the 19 years old, the 10th 10 old, the 19 years old, the 10th 10 old, the 19th 10 old, the 10th son of the 20th △△△△△, and the 10th 197 old, the 10 deceased.

If so, in light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff's assertion to change the number of members of the plaintiff's common ancestor and the scope of its members is not permitted as it brings about the result of the change of the parties. Therefore, the court below should not recognize it as the plaintiff because the plaintiff has lost a clan pursuant to the above changed argument, and should have investigated ex officio whether the non-party 10, who was the plaintiff initially asserted and confirmed, has lost a clan, and should have determined whether the plaintiff has the plaintiff's ability to be a party. However, it is difficult to recognize the plaintiff's ability to be a party on the ground that the clan was lost due to the change of the plaintiff's argument as seen earlier without the court below, which did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the party's ability, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the change of the parties, which affected the conclusion of judgment

B. Next, we examine the nature of the organization asserted by the Plaintiff in this case.

A clan within its unique meaning does not require a special organization as a clan organization, which is naturally created custom for the purpose of protecting the graves of a common ancestor and promoting friendship among its members, but it does not necessarily require a special organization. Among the descendants of a common ancestor, the descendants of an adult or older shall naturally become its members, and part of them shall not be arbitrarily excluded from their members. Thus, some of the members of a clan residing in a specific area or an organization consisting only of the members of a specific port shall not be a clan that is merely a similar organization of a clan and that of its unique meaning (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da15048, Sept. 22, 1992).

In light of the above legal principles, ○○○○○○○○ Family Association’s name was unique for ○○○○○○○○○○ Family Association’s name, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Family Association’s name, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Family Association’s name, ○○○○○○○○○○ Family Association’s name, ○○○○○○○○○○ Family Association’s name, ○○○○○○○○○○ Family Association’s name, ○○○○○○○○○○ Family Association’s name, ○○○○○○○○ Family Association’s name, ○○○○○○○○ Family Association’s name, ○○○○○○○ Family Association’s name, ○○○○○ Family Association’s name, i.e., the Plaintiff’s name, i., e., the Plaintiff’s 1 group’s name, and ○○ Family Association’s name.

In addition, in the event that the entity of the Plaintiff’s organization is identified as above, the Plaintiff’s organization was established on May 14, 1988, and such organization cannot be entrusted with the title of the first real estate to Nonparty 10 in the 1910s. Moreover, for the protection of the graves of ○○○○○○ △△△△△ Group, the Plaintiff’s organization becomes a person entitled to receive a donation of the second real estate in this case where the grave is located, and it is not normally impossible to hold that the title trust is made to Nonparty 11. Thus, the clans unique meaning of the Plaintiff’s organization composed of the members of the ○○○ ○○ ○○ △△△△△△△△△△△△△ Group, which consists of the members of the two clans, may become the owners of each real estate in this case, apart from the possibility that the Plaintiff’s organization owned each of the real estate in this case and entrusted only the title of the two to Nonparty 10 and Nonparty 11.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized the plaintiff's organization as a clan with its own meaning, and recognized that the plaintiff's organization owned each of the real estate of this case and entrusted only the title of ownership to the non-party 10 and non-party 11 shall not be deemed to have committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles on the classification of clans and similar organizations within its own meaning or by misunderstanding facts. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)