Of the part on the principal lawsuit of the lower judgment, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the part on the counterclaim are reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where a lawsuit concerning the property jointly owned by a non-corporate clan is filed without a resolution of the general meeting of members, barring special circumstances including the existence of other provisions in the articles of incorporation, the lawsuit is unlawful, inasmuch as a clan, which is a non-corporate clan, has filed a lawsuit concerning the property jointly owned without such resolution

(1) The Plaintiff, a non-corporate group, filed the instant counterclaim with respect to the performance of the procedure for ownership transfer registration, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da97044, Jul. 28, 2011; 2012Da118594, Apr. 25, 201). However, even after examining the record, there is no evidence suggesting that the Defendant, a non-corporate group, filed the instant counterclaim with respect to the performance of the procedure for ownership transfer registration, etc., and obtained a resolution of a clan general meeting. Therefore, the lower court further determined on the premise that the instant counterclaim is legitimate, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the lawsuit related to collective ownership, and there is a justifiable ground for appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

2. A person who installs or owns a grave on the land of another person shall occupy the land of another person only to the extent necessary for the preservation and management of the grave, barring special circumstances. Thus, the intention of possession is not presumed to be the nature of the possession. However, if the purchaser in the course of purchasing or acquiring the land occupies the land that he/she purchased or acquired part of the adjoining land by mistake without accurately verifying the boundary of the adjoining land, and is believed to belong to the land that he/she purchased or acquired part of the adjoining land, the possession of the adjoining land shall be deemed to be based on the owner’s intention. In such cases, the method of occupying the adjoining land was to install and manage a grave

Supreme Court Decision 2006 June 6, 2007