(a) A case where the subject matter of a lawsuit differs from the parties, and thus does not violate the principle of prohibition of re-instigation;

B. Whether there is a limit on the number between the common lines and descendants in the establishment of a clan

(c) the criteria for determining the substance of the small or medium secte of the earth and its name;

(d) Where any member of the clan who has not received a notification for convening a general meeting of a clan becomes aware of it by other means, the effect of a resolution at such general meeting;

(e) The case affirming the validity of a resolution of a clan general meeting made without attending the meeting of the clan members, considering that the members of the clan were aware of convening the general meeting of the clan by other means, in case where the convocation notice for a specific clan member was omitted;

(a) The case holding that in the case where, after a final judgment has been rendered on the merits, the prohibition of a lawsuit against the withdrawn person has the same subject matter of lawsuit between the same parties, and the previous suit withdrawn after the final judgment has been rendered is the same subject matter of lawsuit between the same parties, and, contrary to the fact that the clan "A" takes the ownership confirmation of the real estate by the descendants of "A", the subsequent suit shall be the first 11 years old descendants of "B" and then the subsequent suit shall constitute "B" which is the second ever part of "B", and the subsequent suit shall not be contrary to the principle of prohibition of a lawsuit, on the grounds that the subsequent suit is the lawsuit whose subject matter of lawsuit

(b) A clan is a naturally occurring relative organization formed by descendants of the common ancestor for the purpose of protecting the graves of the ancestor and promoting friendship among their descendants, and is established by his/her descendants at the same time as the death of the ancestor and there is no limit on the number of his/her descendants.

C. The name of the clans or the clans shall be determined according to its substantive substance, regardless of the name of the clans or clans, such as the co-ownership of the clans or the range of descendants who are the subjects of religious service and the status of graves management, etc., given that the clans or the clans naturally created for the religious services of the common ancestor, the management of graves, and the friendship among their descendants, etc., shall be determined according to its substantive substance, such as the scope of descendants who are the subjects of religious service and the status of graves management.

D. In the absence of the rules or practice of the clan, a notification for convening a clan general meeting shall give each member the opportunity to participate in the discussion and resolution of the general meeting, and the resolution of the general meeting of the clan held without such notification, which lacks such notification to some members, shall not be deemed to be valid, unless the resolution was obtained from a majority of the members who can be notified, but if the member who did not receive a notification for convening a general meeting becomes aware of it by other methods, even if he did not attend the general meeting of the clan, the resolution of the general meeting of the clan shall not be deemed null and void.

E. The case holding that, although the head of a clan sent a notice of convening the general meeting of a clan to a specific member, the members of the clan omitted the entry of the year, time, place, etc., but the members of the clan reside in the village where considerable number of members of the clan reside, and if the head of the clan is the same as the place of the general meeting of the clan and the head of the clan has made a public announcement of the date of convening the general meeting of the clan, the members of the clan could not be viewed as null and void by omitting the convocation date of the notice of convening the general meeting of the clan on the above day.

(a) Article 240(2)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 31(d)(e) of the Civil Act; Articles 71 and 75 of the Civil Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 94Da17772 delivered on November 11, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3259). (B) Supreme Court Decision 91Da42081 delivered on July 24, 1992 (Gong1992, 2524) 92Da30375 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3289) (Gong1992, 3284 delivered on December 26, 1992) 91Da42609 delivered on May 26, 1992 (Gong192, 2006).

Of steel shills, spack spackspacks, spacks

Defendant 1 and four others, Defendants, Dongba General Law Firm, Attorneys Song Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 93Na4643 delivered on May 6, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The effect of the prohibition of re-instigation on a person who withdraws the lawsuit after the final judgment on the merits has been rendered shall be the same subject matter as that between the same parties, and upon examination of the records, the lawsuit withdrawn after the final judgment is made shall be the first claim for the confirmation of ownership of each of the real estate in the case as a counter-resident, while the lawsuit in the case of this case shall be the first class of Non-party 1, who is the 11-year-old hand of the above death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death death resulting from the cancellation of title trust on each of the real estate, and the lawsuit in the case of this case is the lawsuit in which the parties are different

Even though the above clan, a party to the previous lawsuit, argued that he is the clan of the first instance that he is a joint ancestor, and that he was changed to the argument that he is the non-party 1, the descendants of the deceased and the deceased and the non-party 1, the joint ancestor of the joint ancestor at the appellate trial, it shall be deemed unlawful since it is not allowed (see the judgment of the court below 94Da19792, Oct. 11, 1994).

In addition, the fact that most of the list of the minutes of the plaintiff clans and the list of the above clans that are the parties to the lawsuit are identical cannot be readily concluded that the above clans and the plaintiff clans that are the parties to the lawsuit are the same clans, and it cannot be said that the clans that seek registration of ownership transfer or ownership

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. On the second ground for appeal

A clan is a naturally occurring family organization formed by descendants of a common ancestor for the purpose of protecting the graves of the ancestor and promoting friendship among descendants, and is established by their own descendants at the same time as the death of the ancestor, and there is no limit on the number of the clans. The name of the clans or the clans is common practice or custom that the clans of the clans are going to be accompanied by the public officials or the descendants of the clans or the descendants of the clans, but in light of the fact that the clans is a clan naturally created for the purpose of protecting the graves of the common ancestors and maintaining graves and promoting friendship among their descendants, it shall be determined by its substantive contents, such as the scope of the descendants who are the subjects of the clans, the descendants who are the members of the clans, and the status of the grave management (see each Decision 30Da7579, Nov. 14, 1994; 197Da3757, Jul. 37, 197). 197;

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that non-party 2 was a person at the beginning of the horse, who was a 14-year-old son, with the non-party 3, who was the king's death, and that the king's death was changed due to the change of king's death, and that the king's last king's death was cut to the king's king's old king's old king's old king's old king's old king's old king's old king's old king's old king's old king's old king's old king's old king's old king's old king's old king's old king's old king's old king's old king's new king's old king's old king, and that it was not an error in the law of 198's old king's old king's old king's new 198's old king.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

3. On the fourth ground for appeal

A notification for convening a general meeting of a clan shall be given to all the members of the clan who are notified in an appropriate manner, and each member shall be given an opportunity to participate in the discussion and resolution of the general meeting, and the resolution of the general meeting of a clan held without such notification, which lacks to some members, shall not be deemed to be valid, and it shall not be deemed to be different from that of a majority of the members who can be notified of such resolution (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da45015, Jun. 14, 1994; 93Da45015, Jun. 14, 1994). If a member who did not receive a notification for convening a general meeting becomes aware of it by any other method, even if he did not attend the general meeting of the clan,

According to the records, the non-party 4, the head of the plaintiff clan, among the defendants, sent a notice of convening the general meeting of the clan on November 5, 191 to the defendant 1 among the defendants, and entered the year, time and place (the address 1 omitted) of Gangwon-do, and omitted the date, but the defendant 1 is living in the repair of the non-party 1, who is residing in a large number of members of the plaintiff clans, and the place of the above clans general meeting ( Address 2 omitted) is also ( Address 2 omitted), and the non-party 4, the head of the plaintiff clan, can recognize the fact that the general meeting of the above clans was convened by the newspaper until the date of convening the general meeting of the plaintiff's clans general meeting. Thus, in making a notice of convening the general meeting of the defendant 1, it cannot be said that the resolution of the general meeting of the clans is null and void merely because it omitted the date of convening the general meeting.

Although the reasoning of the court below is inappropriate, it is just in the conclusion that rejected the defendants' defense, and there is no error of law as to the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, according to the rules of the clan or the rules of the clan for the appointment of the representative of the clan or for the adoption of the rules of the clan, if there is no such rules of the clan or the rules of the clan, it is common customs to make a resolution with the consent of the majority of present members after convening the general meeting of the members of the clan or the rules of the clan. According to the records, the non-party 5 who participated in the resolution at the general meeting of the members of the plaintiff clan on November 5, 191 may recognize facts that are not adults at that time. On the other hand, although the non-party 5 who can contact with the plaintiff clans all 50 members, except the above non-party 5 among them, it can be recognized that the non-party 5 attended and attended and passed the resolution of the general meeting of the clans with the consent of all present members. Thus, the attendance of the above non-party 5 does not affect the worship of the clans, and therefore it cannot be said that

In addition, it cannot be said that the resolution of the general meeting of the above clan is unlawful solely on the ground that two to four members have attended at the inaugural general meeting of the clan.

Therefore, all arguments are without merit.

4. On the third ground for appeal

The court below held that each real estate of this case was managed as the ownership of the plaintiff clan, and that among the plaintiff's real estate remaining due to the destruction of the registry and the public records on each of the above real estate due to the incident on June 25, 198, the plaintiff's clan was entrusted with the registration title to the non-party 6, who is the non-party 6, and that on October 6, 1975, the non-party 7 reported each of the real estate of this case to the non-party 6 as owned by the above non-party 6, it was sold KRW 18,700 out of the price to the non-party 7, 1995, and used KRW 18,700 out of the price for each of the real estate of this case as the expenses for the preservation of ownership. Thus, the defendants did not reject the defendants' assertion that the defendants purchased the standing timber of this case and received the purchase price. In addition, the fact that the defendants possessed the evidence No. 6-3 of this case does not affect the conclusion that each of this case's.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

5. Accordingly, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)