2. Defendant C shall set out the attached list 2 in the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff acquired ownership by receiving a successful bid in the voluntary auction procedure for each real estate of this case (hereinafter “voluntary auction procedure of this case”) on April 28, 2016.

Defendant C asserted in the instant voluntary auction procedure that “the Defendant church has the right of retention based on the claim for beneficial non-payment of the amount of KRW 230 million in respect of the building of this case,” and reported the right of retention in the name of the Defendant church, stating himself as the member of the Defendant church and as the member of the Defendant church.

[Ground of recognition] An unincorporated association under Article 52 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the existence of a lawsuit against the defendant church, which is a non-legal entity under Article 52 of the judgment ex officio as to the absence of dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 5, and 7 evidence (including provisional number), testimony of witness D, the whole purport of the pleading, and the whole purport of the pleading, refers to an organization which is a combination of many persons organized for a certain purpose and which has a provision

In particular, in the case of churches, it is organized by the majority of the members, which is engaged in certain religious activities, and the representative shall be appointed to recognize the ability of party as an association which is not a juristic person.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da30675 delivered on November 26, 1991, etc.). The testimony of Gap 5 and 7 and witness D alone are insufficient to recognize that the defendant church satisfies the above requirements as an association that is not a juristic person, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit against the Defendant church is unlawful as a lawsuit against a person who fails to be equipped with the party capacity.

As to the claim against Defendant C, if the written evidence Nos. 3 through 5, and 7 regarding the building of this case added the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that Defendant C occupies the building of this case. Thus, unless there is any legitimate assertion as to the possessory right, the above Defendant does not have any evidence as to the possessory right.