In a case where some members of a clan regularly meet at a certain time and place each year in accordance with the rules or practices of the clan and set their clans in advance to deal with their religious affairs, whether the resolution of the clan general meeting may be null and void on the ground that they did not give notice of convening or convening the resolution (negative) / Whether the legal principles on convening and notifying the clan general meeting apply likewise to organizations similar to the clans (affirmative)

Articles 31 and 71 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1194 Decided October 13, 1987 (Gong1987, 1713), Supreme Court Decision 92Da47694 Decided May 25, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1843), Supreme Court Decision 2010Da20235 Decided August 19, 2010

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14877 decided May 2, 200

South Wonyang C&C Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Jae-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na25963 decided October 5, 2012

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In the absence of special circumstances, the general meeting of a clan shall set forth the scope of the members of the clan subject to notification for convening a meeting, discussion, and resolution of each clan by individually convening a notice to all the members of the clan who are clearly residing in the Republic of Korea, and each member shall be given an opportunity to participate in the meeting, debate, and resolution of the general meeting of the clan held without failing to give notice for convening a meeting: Provided, That in a case where the members of the clan regularly meet at a certain time each year in accordance with the rules or practices of the clan and have been set in advance to handle the members of the clan, the resolution of the general meeting of the clan shall not be deemed null and void unless the notice for convening a meeting or resolution was given separately (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu194, Oct. 13, 1987; 2010Da20235, Aug. 19, 2010).

Meanwhile, while a clan or a similar organization of a clan consisting only of residents in a specific region or persons with specific qualifications among its descendants has different meanings in its legal status or the composition of its organization for the purpose of the protection of graves of a clan, the conduct of religious services, and the conduct of friendship, etc., it shall also apply to the legal relations concerning organizations similar to a clan to the extent that it does not go against its nature or regulations. In particular, the above legal principles on the convocation and notification, etc. of the general meeting of a clan shall also apply to similar organizations of a clan.

2. Review of the facts established by the lower court and the facts duly admitted by the evidence reveals the following.

A. Nonparty 11, who was 14 years old, was on the 14-year-old son Nonparty 1, was on the Republic of Korea. Nonparty 2 was on the scam, scam Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 5 under the scam. Nonparty 3 was on the scam. Nonparty 6, sick, volunteer Nonparty 7, Nonparty 8, and Nonparty 9 on the scam, and Nonparty 10, who was the third child of Scam, was on the scam of Scam. Nonparty 10, who was on the scam of Nonparty 10, Nonparty 11, who was on the scam of Scam, entered the scam of Scam, and was on the scambal of Scam, and was on the scam of his 10-year-old scam and 10-year-old scams, and was on the 193-year-old scam.

B. Article 2 of the Regulation provides that the Plaintiff’s text is “the principle that it shall be composed of the post-spawion of the deceased land.” However, Article 2 of the Regulation provides that ① the original book is a wooden club in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, ② the descendants of the deceased land in the south of the Gyeonggi-do Sinsan-gun, the permanent domicile of which is the post-spawion of the deceased land, and ② the descendants of the deceased land in the south of the Sinung-gun-gun, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the post-spawion of the deceased land, who reside under the mountain of the Sogsan-gun, from among the descendants of the Sinung-gun-gun, the vice-spawn-gun, and Article 6 provides that “the president shall elect capable human resources that passed more than a majority at the general meeting”, and Article 8 provides that “the ordinary meeting shall be one of the members present at each household, respectively, once a year.”

C. Nonparty 13 and Nonparty 14, 15, and 16, who were the co-inheritorss of the Plaintiff’s gate, jointly notified for convening a convening session on December 1, 2009 (on October 15, 2009), a general meeting was held in the Re-office in the Plaintiff’s gate located in the Gunpo-si ( Address omitted). In so doing, Nonparty 16 was elected as the president of the Plaintiff as a full-time director.

3. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the plaintiff's door is not a clan with its own meaning, considering the method of calculating the quorum for the proceedings of the members and the general meeting, but a clan similar organization. As long as the rules provided that the general meeting should be regularly held at a certain place every year, it is not necessary to give separate convocation notice to the members of the general meeting. Therefore, even if some of the members were omitted in the process of giving a separate convocation notice as stated in the judgment of the court below as to the general meeting of December 1, 2009, the general meeting shall be deemed to have been lawfully held, and the resolution that the non-party 16 elected the representative of the plaintiff's door shall be deemed to be valid unless there are other special circumstances.

Nevertheless, the court below held that a resolution at the above general meeting is null and void solely on the ground that some members lack the convocation procedure of the general meeting. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the convocation of the general meeting of clans or similar organizations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. The judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)