Duty of care of a person who purchases real estate owned by a clan;

In case of purchasing real estate registered as the ownership of a clan from an individual, it is common to require the submission of a clan resolution or to confirm it from the clan members or the clan members, so if such confirmation measures are not taken, it shall not be deemed that there is a justifiable reason to believe that the member has the right to dispose of such real estate.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of Lee Jong-sung

Intervenor joining the Plaintiff

Defendant’s Attorney Cho Jong-sung et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na3110 decided May 10, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds for appeal by the defendant's attorney and the supplementary grounds for appeal are also examined.

As to ground of appeal No. 1:

In accordance with the evidence of this case, the court below rejected the defendant's defense on the qualification of the plaintiff's representative, since the plaintiff's clan is recognized that the previous members of the clan handled the plaintiff's clan on behalf of the plaintiff's clan and attended a majority of the clan legitimately convened on July 13, 1976 at the clan meeting and the members of the plaintiff's clan were elected as the representative of the plaintiff's clan by the resolution of the whole members, the court below rejected the defendant's defense on the qualification of the plaintiff's representative. In light of the evidence adopted by the court below through the records, the above fact judgment by the court below is just and acceptable. Thus, the judgment of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the omission of the evidence judgment such as the theory

With respect to the same paragraphs 2 and 3:

The court below selected the evidence and confirmed that the plaintiff 4 was the only representative of the plaintiff clan and sold the forest land and the above soil to the defendant alone, even if the non-party 4 was not entitled to dispose of the forest land and the above non-party 4's objection that it should be protected by the legal principles of expression agency, if the defendant purchases the real estate registered as the clan's possession from the non-party 4's true representative or the non-party 4's right to request disposal of the forest land and the above disposition of the plaintiff's clan, and the non-party 4's right to request disposal of the plaintiff's clan to the non-party 2, non-party 1, non-party 3, and non-party 4 to the non-party 4's common clan or the non-party 4's right to request disposal of the forest land and the above disposition of the non-party 4's own forest land after confirming that the non-party 4's right to request disposal of the plaintiff's forest land and the above disposition of the non-party 4's forest land were not known.

Upon examining the process of the judgment of the court below through records, it is evident that the plaintiff clan was elected by four co-representatives as shown above with regard to the disposition of selling the forest land and the soil, etc. of this case by integrating the evidence Nos. 1 (Resolution) and other evidences in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the contents of the resolution or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the negligence of good faith in the expression representation. Further, the fact that the court below found that the defendant purchased the forest land of this case from the above non-party Nos. 4 as to the facts before and after the purchase from the above non-party No. 4 shall be pride by the evidence at the time of the court below's decision, and based on this, the court below's decision rejecting the defendant's defense as to the expression representation shall not be deemed to have sufficiently been made. In addition, it does not appear that the judgment of the court below violated the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or the omission

The issue is ultimately, since the evidence lawfully rejected by the court below is re-written and the rejected facts are re-written, it is based on the facts that the court below's whole authority concerning the preparation of evidence and the fact-finding is not recognized by the court below, or it is not possible to employ the court below from a standpoint different from the opinion of the court below because it is not an attack on the court below.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit and is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who has lost the costs of appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Dra-ro (Presiding Justice)