[1] In a case where the court of lawsuit appoints a special representative under Article 62 of the Civil Procedure Act, whether the special representative may dispose of the right according to a judgment on the lawsuit on behalf of the principal (negative)

[2] In a case where the general meeting of a clan makes a resolution on matters relating to a clan and a member of a clan, whether the member has voting rights (negative), and whether the resolution becomes null and void merely because the member without voting rights participated in the meeting which made a resolution (negative)

[1] Article 62 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 74 of the Civil Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2008Da1521 decided Apr. 9, 2009 (Gong2009Sang, 614)

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Park Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

From among the species of cancellation of Symnae Sym Sym Symna (Co., Ltd. as Special Representative)

Defendant Intervenor 1 and 42 others (Law Firm Apex, Attorneys Gangnam-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na18576 decided February 23, 2012

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant joining the Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Even where the court of the lawsuit appoints a special representative pursuant to Article 62 of the Civil Procedure Act, the disposition authority of the right by a judgment on the lawsuit case shall be reverted to the principal. Thus, this part of the grounds of appeal on a different premise is without merit.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A special representative appointed under Article 62 of the Civil Procedure Act shall have the authority as a legal representative in the pertinent lawsuit. Thus, apart from the fact that a special representative, in a case where he/she appoints an attorney on his/her behalf, he/she shall bear the obligation to pay the appointment fee accordingly, the special representative shall not be deemed to have the authority to dispose of the principal's claim secured by the judgment in lieu of the payment of the appointment fee to the principal's attorney (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 65Da338, Apr. 27, 1965; 93Da8986, Jul. 27, 1993).

Therefore, this part of the ground of appeal on the premise that the assignment of claims in this case by a special representative of the defendant clan is lawful and effective is not justified.

3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4

This part of the grounds of appeal is premised on the erroneous fact-finding by the court below. Even if examining the records, it cannot be found that the court below's fact-finding or its premise exceeded the limit of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. Therefore, this part of the grounds of appeal is nothing more than criticism of the matters belonging to the exclusive authority of the court below, and it cannot be said that there is a misunderstanding of the legal principles or incomplete hearing as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. As to the fifth ground for appeal

The judgment of the court below that the non-party who convened each of the clans in the judgment below held by the defendant clan is the father of the plaintiff 3 and cannot be viewed as the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party with the defendant clan

5. Regarding ground of appeal No. 6

According to Article 74 of the Civil Act, in a case where a decision is made with respect to the relation between an incorporated association and a member, there is no voting right, and in such analogical interpretation, if the general meeting of the defendant's clan makes a decision on the relation with a member of the defendant's clan, that member shall not have voting right. The meaning of non-voting right here does not include the number of members who are the basis for calculating the quorum necessary for the establishment of the resolution in the meaning that the member cannot exercise voting right at the general meeting of the clan, but shall be included in the number of members who are the basis for calculating the quorum (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da1521, Apr. 9, 2009, etc.). Therefore, such a resolution shall not be deemed null and void merely because the member without voting right participated at the general meeting of the defendant's clan.

Meanwhile, regardless of the status of the cause of the clan, a member whose voting rights are restricted by the resolution of the above matters with a clan is limited to a person who has an interest in a clan on his own regardless of whether he is a member of the clan, and his voting rights are not limited solely on the ground that he is in a relationship with a member of the clan who is in such relationship. Moreover, there is no ground to view that the voting rights are limited to the exercise of voting rights delegated to other members of the clan with the voting rights.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of such legal principles and records, it is proper for the court below to take measures that the resolution of February 19, 201 of this case by the defendant clan is valid, and there is no violation of the misapprehension of legal principles as to voting rights or omission of judgment, as otherwise alleged in the

6. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 7 and 8

In light of the circumstances indicated in its holding, it is acceptable that the resolution of this case, which reduced the plaintiffs' damage liability, cannot be said to be an unfair resolution that evidently goes against the justice, and there is no illegality of misunderstanding of legal principles as to the disposal of clan property and substantial justice, or omission of judgment, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal for this part.

7. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)