[1] Whether compensation for accommodation of a clan which is a non-corporate group can be distributed according to a resolution of the clan general meeting (affirmative)

[2] Criteria to determine whether the resolution of the clan general meeting on the distribution of clan property is considerably unfair

[3] The validity of the distribution of a clan property where there is a difference in the distribution ratio, etc. according to the gender classification (=negative)

[4] The case holding that the resolution of the board of directors held that the above resolution of the board of directors is null and void because it is a discrimination against the gender between the members of a non-household, not the members of a non-household, in the case of a female clan member, although the board of directors delegated to set a specific criteria for distributing the clan property in the resolution of the general meeting, the resolution of including one head of a household in the shares of two or more times in the shares among the members of the non-household members, merely because the members were registered as the head of a household under the resident registration card, and it cannot be deemed that there are reasonable grounds merely because there is a discrimination against the members of the non-household members, regardless of whether they are married or not.

[5] In a case where a resolution of the clan general meeting on the distribution of compensation for the accommodation of a clan land is null and void, whether a member of the clan can immediately seek for the payment of shares that he/she claims fairly against the clan (negative)

[1] Articles 31, 275, and 276 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 31, 275, and 276 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 31, 275, and 276 of the Civil Act / [4] Articles 31, 275, and 276 of the Civil Act / [5] Articles 31, 275, and 276 of the Civil Act

[1] [5] Supreme Court Decision 93Da32446 delivered on April 26, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1463) / [3] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Da13850 Delivered on July 21, 2005

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

1. The term “public interest” means the public interest in good faith and the public interest in good faith and the public interest in good faith.

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na112351 decided September 5, 2007

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Compensation for accommodation of a clan which is a non-corporate group shall belong to the collective ownership of its members, and the distribution of compensation for accommodation constitutes collective ownership (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da32446, Apr. 26, 1994). Unless otherwise stipulated in the articles of association or other regulations, the compensation for accommodation may be distributed by a resolution of the clan general meeting, and the ratio, method, and contents of the distribution may also be decided autonomously by a resolution. However, since the clan is a naturally created clan group composed for the purpose of protecting the graves of the common ancestor and promoting friendship among its members, its descendants shall naturally make the common ancestor and its origin with no intention, it shall be decided that the resolution of the general meeting on the distribution of the clan is unfair or unreasonable, or if it seriously infringes on the rights and interests of the members of the clan, or its fundamental rights, its resolution shall be null and void, in light of the nature of the clan which has become its members (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 200 regarding the distribution of the clan, the circumstances leading up to the distribution of the clan and its entire property, etc.

B. Review of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance cited by the lower court and the evidence admitted by the lower court reveals the following facts.

(1) The defendant is a clan with the non-party who is the 13th grandchildren of the time-propon road of the Kim Jong-sung, and whose descendants are the members of the clan, and the plaintiffs are women's clans.

(2) On June 2, 2005, the Defendant received KRW 13,748,779,530 for the compensation for the accommodation of clan land from the Espashian.

(3) On October 23, 2005, the Defendant convened a general meeting and made a resolution that the amount of KRW 5 billion out of the confinement compensation shall be paid to an independent household owner, and the amount of KRW 4 billion shall be paid to non-households over 20 years of age (which appears to mean non-households) and those aged 20 years of age or older, on condition that the board of directors shall decide on the specific matters (hereinafter “instant general meeting resolution”).

(4) The board of directors shall distribute the expropriation compensation to the head of a household on October 29, 2005, November 9, 2005, and November 26, 2005, 38 million won to the head of a household, non-household, adult and out-of-household, respectively, 7 million won per 15 million won, net, spouse, family development contributor, disability, minor, and 4 million won per 5 million won to the minor attending school, and the head of a household shall be registered as the head of a household on or before May 22, 1985 under the resident registration card as the head of a household on or before the date on which he was registered as the head of a household on or after the date on which he was registered as the head of a household on or after the date on which he was registered as the head of a household on or after the date on which he was registered as the head of a household on or after the date on which he was registered as the head of a household on or after the date on which he was registered as the head of an unmarried household.

(5) The number of members who can communicate with the defendant is about 308. The defendant paid 4,750,000,000 won to 125 households as of December 30, 2005 as of December 30, 2005 to 125 households, 72 adults of non-households, 10,00 out of home, 77 minors, 31 minors attending school, 2 of the deceased householders, 19, 105, 100,000 won to 4,223,00,000 won to minors of the clans.

C. We examine the above facts in light of the above legal principles.

(1) As to the resolution of the general meeting of this case, it may be difficult to view that the distribution of property is unfair to pay 5 billion won to 125 independent households among 308 members who can communicate with the defendant, and to pay 172 members who are non-household members and female clan members who are the remaining members. However, in light of the nature of the clan consisting of descendants who share the common vessel and the family clan with the same clan, and the autonomy of the clan, it is permissible to divide the property to the descendants who share the same with the common vessel but are not members of the clan within a reasonable scope. Considering the circumstance that the defendant's minor descendants have reached 100 members and most minor descendants have been assigned to the family members, and that there is no discrimination between the non-family members and the non-family members, even if the number of children who are less than the number of children whom the resolution of the general meeting of this case was adopted, it cannot be concluded that there is no discrimination between the non-family members and the non-family members.

(2) Next, we examine the resolution of the board of directors of this case. The resolution of the general meeting of this case, which is delegated to set specific standards for distribution between the head of the household and the non-household members, has two or more times the distribution between the head of the household and the non-household members, and the minor descendants of the head of the household, who are members of the household, and the spouse, are separately paid the distribution to the head of the household, and the resolution to include one head of the household in the head of the household, is merely a discrimination against the head of the household, and there is no reasonable ground to view that there is a discrimination against the head of the non-household members and the non-household members, regardless of whether they are married or not. In addition, the resolution of the board of directors of this case is invalid because it is merely a discrimination between the head of the non-household members and the non-household members, and thus, it cannot be said that the resolution of the board of directors of this case goes beyond the scope of authority of the general meeting of this case to pay part of the non-household members and non-household members.

However, since the resolution of the board of directors of this case is separate from the resolution of the general meeting of this case, it cannot be deemed null and void until the resolution of the general meeting of this case is null and void. According to the records, the plaintiffs only seek confirmation of invalidity only for the resolution of the general meeting

(3) Ultimately, the resolution of the general assembly of this case cannot be deemed null and void, and the decision of the court below rejecting the plaintiffs' claim to nullify the invalidity is justified in its conclusion, although there is an inappropriate point in its reasoning. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' ground of appeal

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. The distribution of compensation for accommodation on the land owned by collective ownership may be disposed of only by a resolution of the general meeting of clans unless otherwise stipulated in the articles of association or by other regulations, and members of the clan may not request for direct distribution of the clans (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da32446, Apr. 26, 1994, etc.). Therefore, in a case where a resolution of the general meeting of clans concerning the distribution of compensation for accommodation on the land owned by the clans is null and void, the members of the clans can only seek relief for their rights by making the resolution of the new general meeting of clans fairly and fairly after receiving a favorable decision of the general meeting of clans after filing a lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of the resolution, etc., and it cannot immediately seek a payment of distribution, claiming that the previous general meeting's resolution is null and void.

B. In the same purport, the decision of the court below which rejected the plaintiffs' claim seeking the payment of equal shares is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)