The method of preserving collective property and the register of lawsuits in which members of the clan seek the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of another person about collective property and the confirmation of the ownership in the clan without the resolution of the general meeting

The provisions of Article 265 of the Civil Act concerning the preservation of collective property cannot be applied to the preservation of collective property, and unless there are any special circumstances, it shall undergo a resolution of a general meeting of members pursuant to the provisions of Article 276 (1) of the Civil Act concerning its management. Therefore, it is improper to claim cancellation registration and confirmation of the ownership transfer registration under the name of another person concerning collective ownership as preservation act without the resolution of the general meeting, by asserting that the registration of cancellation and the ownership

Article 276(1) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 13461, Sep. 23, 1986 (Gong1986, 2941) (Gong1986, 2941) and 80Da2045,2046, Dec. 9, 1980

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Defendant 1 and 27 others

Daegu District Court Decision 90Na7799 delivered on October 11, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The provisions of Article 265 of the Civil Act concerning the preservation of collective property cannot be applied to the preservation of collective property, and unless there are special circumstances, it shall be subject to a resolution of a general meeting of members pursuant to the provisions of Article 276 (1) of the Civil Act concerning its management (see Supreme Court Decision 73Da47 delivered on May 27, 1975; Supreme Court Decision 80Da2045,2046 delivered on December 9, 1980). Under the premise that the real property in this case is owned by a male in the non-party territorial wave, it is unlawful for the plaintiffs, who are the reasons of the clan, to claim the cancellation registration and the confirmation of the ownership transfer of the names of the defendants as the preservation act without the resolution of the general meeting, and to claim the cancellation registration and the confirmation of the ownership transfer of the non-party clan, which are owned by the non-party clan. The court below is justified and there is no ground for appeal to the contrary.

Therefore, 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 Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)