2. Determination on the defendants' main defense

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had no capacity to stand a party is the same as that of “the judgment on the instant safety defense, etc.” in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420

B. 1) The summary of the Defendants’ assertion that the instant lawsuit was unlawful as it was filed by the resolution of the extraordinary general meeting, was unlawful. The Plaintiff did not give notice of convening the general meeting on December 13, 2014 to 16 members of the members, including BU, BV, BW, BX, BY, BY, Z, CA, CB,CC, CD, CE, CF, CG, CH, CH, CI, and CJ. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is ratified during the extraordinary general meeting of this case and the decision of appointing BH as the Plaintiff’s representative is null and void, unless there are special circumstances, since Article 265 of the Civil Act concerning the preservation of common property is not applicable to the instant lawsuit, and the resolution of the general meeting cannot be applied to all members of the clan who are not juristic persons, without giving notice of the general meeting’s general meeting’s opportunity to participate in the preservation of the property of the clan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da36510, supra.