Supreme Court: "Jongjung-like organizations composed only of some members must prove identity with the original Jongjung to file a lawsuit"
[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] The Supreme Court has ruled that a clan-like organization composed of only some descendants of a common ancestor must prove that it is the same entity as the original clan in order to have the standing to proceed with related lawsuits.
The Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Min Yoo-sook) overturned the lower court's ruling in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the Changnyeong Jo clan-like organization against the Yeonggwang County Forestry Cooperative, seeking cancellation of ownership transfer registration, and remanded the case to the Gwangju District Court on the 22nd.
The court stated, "A genuine clan, in the original sense, is a naturally formed customary kinship group whose purpose is to protect the graves and perform ancestral rites of a common ancestor. Descendants of the common ancestor automatically become members (clan members) upon reaching adulthood, regardless of their will. In particular, to recognize the establishment and ownership rights of a clan-like organization that limits its scope to only some members rather than a naturally formed genuine clan, it must be carefully examined whether the clan-like organization was claimed to bypass various procedures required for filing a lawsuit, such as convening a clan general meeting, or to exclude certain clan members."
Regarding the Changnyeong Jo clan-like organization that filed the lawsuit, the court pointed out, "There is insufficient data on the purpose of limiting members to adult males residing in Yeonggwang County among the descendants of Jeonranggong, what joint property was formed, and the full list of members has not been identified. There is considerable possibility that the plaintiff is merely claiming to be such a clan-like organization despite no actual organization or establishment."
The Changnyeong Jo clan-like organization purchased 7,739㎡ of land in Yeonggwang-eup, Yeonggwang County, Jeollanam-do, in May 1932 and registered the ownership transfer in December of the same year.
However, in August 2016, a problem arose when Mr. A purchased this real estate from Mr. B, who impersonated the representative of the Changnyeong Jo clan-like organization, and completed the ownership transfer registration. The Changnyeong Jo clan-like organization was unaware of this and ended up having to transfer the real estate to Mr. A. After the ownership transfer registration, Mr. A also established a mortgage and superficies rights with the Yeonggwang County Forestry Cooperative, complicating the issue further.
Investigations revealed that Mr. B colluded with Mr. A to fraudulently register the ownership transfer to obtain a loan using the real estate as collateral for personal use.
Accordingly, the Changnyeong Jo clan-like organization filed a lawsuit claiming that the ownership transfer registration between Mr. A and Mr. B is invalid and that the mortgage and superficies rights registrations based on it should be canceled.
The first trial recognized the Changnyeong Jo clan-like organization as having substance as a clan-like organization and acknowledged its standing to sue but dismissed the case, stating that the related general meeting was not properly held.
Hot Picks Today
"Could I Also Receive 370 Billion Won?"... No Limit on 'Stock Manipulation Whistleblower Rewards' Starting the 26th
- Samsung Electronics Labor-Management Reach Agreement, General Strike Postponed... "Deficit-Business Unit Allocation Deferred for One Year"
- "From a 70 Million Won Loss to a 350 Million Won Profit with Samsung and SK hynix"... 'Stock Jackpot' Grandfather Gains Attention
- "Stocks Are Not Taxed, but Annual Crypto Gains Over 2.5 Million Won to Be Taxed Next Year... Investors Push Back"
- "Who Is Visiting Japan These Days?" The Once-Crowded Tourist Spots Empty Out... What's Happening?
The second trial recognized the Changnyeong Jo clan-like organization's standing to sue and ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the general meeting was lawfully convened and conducted.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.