[1] The method of determining the scope of the clan members subject to notification of convening a clan general meeting and the method of convening such notification

[2] The case denying the validity of the resolution of the clan general meeting on the ground that the scope of the clan members subject to notification of convening a clan general meeting is defective in the procedure for determining the scope of the clan members and convening it

[1] Where a clan holds a general meeting, unless there are special circumstances, it shall include all the clans listed in the world newsletters, and where there are other clans not listed in the world newsletters, it shall also include them, and it shall individually give notice to the clans who are able to communicate with the location clearly after determining the scope of the clans subject to a notice for convening a general meeting.

[2] The case denying the effect of the resolution of the clan general meeting on the ground that it was defective because it did not go through the procedure for determining the scope of the clan members and convening a call individually to the clan members who clearly meet the location of the clan members after determining the scope of the clan members, including all the clan members listed in the Sejong and other clans who are not recorded in the Sejong, and it did not go through the procedure for convening a call

[1] Articles 31 and 71 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 31 and 71 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da42439 delivered on March 9, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1152), Supreme Court Decision 93Da514 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1654), Supreme Court Decision 95Da4986 delivered on February 28, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 893), Supreme Court Decision 99Da20155 delivered on February 25, 200 (Gong200Sang, 809)

Daegu C&C Council (Attorney Regular M&C, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Attorneys Lee Jae-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na38205 delivered on January 12, 2000

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The court below, on May 18, 1996, appointed the non-party 1 as the representative of the plaintiff clan, was convened without a lawful notification procedure, but there is no dispute as to the legality of the representative authority of the non-party 1 in the lawsuit of this case, and notified individually 451 out of 458 members who can contact at the time of the filing of the lawsuit of this case by the non-party 2, who was the head of the plaintiff clan, after convening the general meeting of August 9, 1998, and notified individually 451 members who were 458 members who could contact at the time of the filing of the lawsuit of this case, and submitted a written delegation to the non-party 1 among the members of the plaintiff clan on August 9, 198, and the general meeting was held, and the non-party 1 again was appointed as the representative of the plaintiff clan by the resolution of the general meeting of this case. The court below determined that the defect was legitimate, even if there was no representative authority at the time of filing the lawsuit of this case.

However, such fact-finding and judgment of the court below are hard to accept.

In this case, if the number of male born after 1940, and the number of male born before 1940 and the number of male who became adults after 1977, the clan members of the plaintiff clan shall be deemed to be above 8,00, and even according to the testimony of non-party 3 of the plaintiff's witness, the clan members of the plaintiff clan shall not reach 8,000, and the number of those registered as the members of the plaintiff clan shall not be 70, in holding the general meeting, unless there are special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff's clan's non-indicted 3's non-party witness's non-party witness's non-party witness's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's ground.

However, the testimony of the non-party 3, who was employed by the court below in recognizing the above facts, is up to 8,000 members of the plaintiff clan, but only 458 members who can communicate at the time of convening the general meeting of August 9, 1998, among them, and it is only a simple and simple content that the plaintiff clan was contacted with the Si/Do branch of the opposite clan without any specific effort to grasp it, and even based on other data, it is not recognized that the plaintiff confirmed the scope of the clan members subject to convening the general meeting and identified the non-party members who can communicate.

Therefore, in holding the general meeting of August 9, 1998, the plaintiff clan did not determine the scope of the above clans, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff clan was part of the clans that can communicate with the members who received a notice of convening a general meeting.

Nevertheless, the court below, without deliberating on these issues, recognized facts as stated in its reasoning based on insufficient evidence, and judged that the general meeting of August 9, 1998 of the plaintiff clan was lawfully held. The court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the rules of evidence and by misapprehending the legal principles on the general meeting of the clans, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal pointing this out are with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Cho Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)