(a) a resolution appointing C by the Assembly of April 15, 2005 as its representative;

B. Attached to the Assembly of June 16, 2007.

A. The defendant is a common ancestor D's religious gathering organization in a naturally occurring custom for the purpose of protecting the graves, conducting religious services, promoting friendship among family members, etc., and is the owner of each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the land of this case" and "the two land of this case" according to the sequences in the separate sheet, and the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party are the defendant's clan members.

B. On April 15, 2005, the Defendant held a general meeting to appoint C as the Defendant’s representative (hereinafter “the first resolution”), held a general meeting on June 16, 2007, and passed a resolution to appoint C as the Defendant’s representative (hereinafter “the second resolution”), and held a special meeting on November 23, 2014 to ratification the first and second resolutions (hereinafter “the second resolution”).

C. The Defendant purchased the instant land from E on July 12, 2007, respectively, from E, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant as to each of the instant land on July 23, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, Eul evidence Nos. 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 15-1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant’s main defense against the Defendant’s main defense is a defense of safety that the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed party have abused the right of action against the principle of good faith by filing a lawsuit against the Defendant or the Defendant’s superior or subordinate subordinate for the purpose other than the lawsuit, and repeating the withdrawal thereof. However, as alleged by the Defendant, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed party repeated the filing and withdrawal of the lawsuit,

However, such circumstance alone cannot be readily concluded that the instant lawsuit was an abuse of power against the principle of good faith. Thus, the Defendant’s principal safety.