[1] Whether it is permissible for the Plaintiff to change its substance differently from the initial argument by asserting that it is a unique meaning of the Plaintiff as a clan or an unincorporated association with no capacity to have rights similar to a clan (negative), and in this case, the measures to be taken by the court

[2] Whether a clan consisting solely of residents in a specific region or persons within a specific scope among descendants of a common ancestor constitutes a clan (negative), and whether a person who moved to another family can become a member of a clan consisting of the common ancestor members of the common ancestor (negative)

[1] If the plaintiff is a unique meaning of a clan or an unincorporated association which has no capacity to maintain the basic identity of facts alleged by the plaintiff as to its substance, it does not constitute a change of the parties, and thus the court may separately evaluate the legal nature of the clan according to its substance. However, if the plaintiff is a unique meaning of a clan or an unincorporated association which has no capacity to rights similar to a clan and the fact about its substance is changed differently from the initial argument, it shall not be permitted to cause the result of the change of the parties. Thus, the court shall judge whether the plaintiff is a member of the clan, and whether the representative has the capacity to represent the plaintiff's clan as the plaintiff's representative, and if the same clan is not lost or the representative is not recognized, the lawsuit shall be dismissed as it is unlawful, and it shall not be recognized as the plaintiff on the ground that the clan, etc. according to the changed argument is lost.

[2] A clan is a naturally created clan organization formed for the purpose of protecting the graves of a common ancestor and promoting friendship among descendants, and is naturally established by its descendants at the same time as the death of its ancestor. Therefore, it cannot be a clan consisting solely of residents in a specific region or persons within a specific scope among descendants of a common ancestor, and a clan cannot be a member of the clan naturally formed by its own group, in light of the purpose of the common ancestor system and the purpose of the two systems under the custom of the Gu.

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da15048 delivered on September 22, 1992 (Gong1992, 2964), Supreme Court Decision 93Da10866 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1629), Supreme Court Decision 93Da5395 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1656), Supreme Court Decision 94Da41249 delivered on December 9, 197 (Gong198Sang, 205) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da34193 delivered on May 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1968), Supreme Court Decision 94Da3963964 delivered on August 16, 196 (Gong19639 decided May 16, 197)

Of the Cheong-Saeng Scopic typhys

Defendant

Daejeon High Court Decision 97Na8982 delivered on February 10, 1999

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

The grounds of appeal are examined ex officio prior to the determination.

If the plaintiff is a non-legal association similar to his own own meaning of a clan or an unincorporated association and the basic identity of factual relations asserted as to its substance is maintained, this does not constitute a change of the parties, and thus the court may evaluate differently the legal nature of the clan according to its substance. However, if the plaintiff is an unincorporated association similar to his own own meaning of a clan or an unincorporated association, and the fact about its substance, such as the scope of its members, is changed differently from the initial argument, it shall not be permitted as it brings about the result of the change of the parties. Thus, the court shall judge whether the plaintiff remains in a clan as originally alleged by the plaintiff, and whether the representative is a representative of the plaintiff clan, and if such a clan is not recognized or its representative is not recognized, it shall be dismissed as unlawful, and it shall not be recognized as the plaintiff on the ground that the clan, etc. according to the changed argument, etc. exists (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da5395, May 10, 1994; 209Da4925, Apr. 25, 1920).

According to the records, in the first instance court, in light of the purport of the arguments, the plaintiff's character of the non-party 1 and the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 3, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 3, the non-party 3, was living in the above non-party 3, and the non-party 4, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 4, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the plaintiff 2.

Since a misunderstanding and a clan is naturally formed by a naturally created clan for the purpose of protecting the graves of a common ancestor and promoting friendship among descendants and at the same time, it is naturally established by its descendants, only a clan consisting of residents in a specific region or persons within a specific scope among descendants of the common ancestor cannot be formed, and a clan mainly takes the lead of conducting the religious services of a common ancestor and a person who goes to a different family in light of the purpose of the common system of the common ancestor, cannot become a member of the clan naturally formed by the common ancestor group (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da12566 delivered on August 23, 196). The judgment of the court below that even according to the plaintiff's assertion, it cannot be viewed as a clan unique meaning of the plaintiff's own meaning.

However, the facts alleged by the plaintiff in the court below as to the substance of the plaintiff's clan, and the plaintiff's clan is a unique meaning naturally formed by consisting of the members of the plaintiff's non-permanent and non-permanent members, and the plaintiff's clan is a non-legal entity formed on February 27, 1983 with approximately 37 members residing mainly in the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity of the non-legal entity.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized the plaintiff as the plaintiff on the ground that the clan of the plaintiff after the plaintiff asserted a change in the preliminary one because it was lost. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the confirmation of the plaintiff as a party to a clan as a non-legal association similar to the clan.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)