Plaintiff (Law Firm Macl, Attorneys Seo Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 8, 2020

Gwangju District Court Decision 2018Gahap5963 Decided May 23, 2019

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. In the first instance, the Defendant’s decision to appoint Nonparty 4 as the representative on July 11, 2017, and the decision to appoint Nonparty 4 as the representative on July 26, 2017, and the decision to dismiss Nonparty 1 as the representative on July 26, 2017 by Nonparty 1 is confirmed as non-existence of a resolution that had Nonparty 1 resign from the representative, and as a preliminary decision, the Defendant’s decision to appoint Nonparty 4 as the representative at the door-to door general meeting on July 11, 2017 by adding Nonparty 4 as the representative at the meeting on July 26, 2017, and the resolution that Nonparty 1 resign from the representative is confirmed as invalid each.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court (Evidence No. 18-1, Evidence No. 19, Evidence No. 21-1, and Evidence No. 21-2, Evidence No. 21-1, No. 32) are examined, it is judged that the fact-finding and the decision of the first instance court are justifiable.

Therefore, the reasoning of this court concerning this case is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of the court below as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is by the main text of Article

2. The addition;

○ On the 8th page of the first instance judgment, the following is added.

As seen above, a clan within its unique meaning as seen in the main text refers to an organization of clans naturally created for the purpose of protecting the graves of the common ancestor, conducting religious services, promoting friendship among its members, etc. However, if a clans is formed and operated solely within a specific scope among the descendants of the common ancestor, it may be viewed as an organization similar to a clan even if it does not constitute a clan. However, in light of the fact that the prior meaning of a clan or an organization which is the fundamental concept of supporting a clan or an organization similar to a clan is “Otain's upper ancestor,” and “as long as several generations run from their own household to their total children, it is basically difficult to view that the group formed by blood relatives to constitute a clans or a similar organization, excluding Nonparty 1’s spouse, lineal blood relatives, and siblings (Article 79 of the Civil Act) or the political party’s lineal descendants (Ga) or his lineal descendants within the scope of the above 1’s inheritance agreement, it is difficult to recognize that the above organization was established by Nonparty 1’s non-party 1’s family members or its lineal descendants (Ga).

○ On the 8th page of the first instance judgment, the following is added after the 15th page.

In addition to the votes contained in the main text, as well as in the non-party 1, if all the 's members' signed and sealed at the time of the preparation of the first door and sealed by the non-party 1 died and all the 's members' were to exist no longer in inheritance relations with the non-party 1, and if the co-purposes exist between them, including the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, the defendant may be viewed as a similar organization. However, at the present stage, there is no room to recognize the defendant's party capacity. Meanwhile, even if the defendant's party capacity is not recognized, as long as the 's party capacity is called from the plaintiff as the 's party to the lawsuit as in this case, it shall be deemed that the lawsuit can be conducted to the minimum extent for performing the litigation in order to prevent the same result as the judgment of confession or the judgment of non-litigation. Accordingly, the defendant's party capacity cannot be acknowledged solely on the ground that the litigation act, such as the appointment of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as unlawful. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is justified with its conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(attached Form omitted)

Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)