logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.04.19 2017나56510
소유권말소등기
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant case is remanded to Changwon District Court Msan Branch.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the part of "1. Basic Facts" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s argument that the Plaintiff’s clan held a general meeting every year at 11:00 a.m., and reported the settlement of revenue and expenditure, and discussed the religious history of literature.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance, which concluded otherwise, is unreasonable, since the separate convocation procedure is not required in the case of the ordinary general meeting on December 22, 2015.

B. According to the clans of the plaintiff clans asserted by the defendants (other than defendant 11.), an ordinary general meeting is held on the "day convenient for each year", and there is no evidence to hold an ordinary general meeting anywhere in that year.

Plaintiff

In light of the fact that there is no minutes from January 1, 1986 to March 2003, the Plaintiff’s general meeting meeting was held every year, and considering the fact that there is no evidence that women have attended the meeting of the clan, the resolution of the Plaintiff’s general meeting on the filing of the lawsuit in this case and the election of the representative do not follow the lawful convening procedure, and thus, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.

C. 1) In the event that a clan member is regularly gathered at a certain place on a certain day each year in accordance with the rules or practices of the clan and the clan members are to handle the church affairs, the convening procedures of the clan general meeting are not required separately (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da27703, Sept. 30, 1994; 2005Da36298, Dec. 8, 2005; 2005Da56315, May 11, 2007; 2005Da56315, May 11, 2007).

arrow