2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. D, which is the assistance of the Defendants, was determined on May 21, 1902 by the conditions of the land E, which was then divided into each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On May 24, 1985, registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of each of the Defendants under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3562 of Apr. 3, 1982, invalidation, and special measures (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 to 4, 5-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the litigation requirements

A. The Defendants asserted that the resolution of the general meeting of February 27, 2016 by the Plaintiff clan that appointed F as the Plaintiff’s representative is null and void, and that the resolution of the general meeting of December 18, 2016 by the Plaintiff clan that ratified the resolution of the above general meeting and brought the lawsuit of this case is null and void, and thus, the lawsuit of this case brought by a non-representative of the representative without a legitimate resolution of the general meeting of clan is deemed unlawful.

B. Relevant legal principles 1) Even though a member of the family who is qualified for the representative of the clan did not directly call a general meeting, if he consented to the convening of the general meeting of the other member and let the member of the clan call it, the general meeting cannot be deemed to be a convening of the general meeting, unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da5288, May 23, 1995).

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da34982 delivered on September 6, 2007, etc.). 3 clans.