매매대금
1. The petitioner's appeal is dismissed;
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the applicant.
As to the quasi-examination, the purport of the claim.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, in addition to adding the following judgments to the argument that the applicant emphasizes in the trial of the court of first instance.
(Application Law: the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act); 2. Additional determination
A. 1) The respondent's assertion 1) was a clan of unique meaning that the defendant set up the "D" for C 19th members of the clan, and the "E" of D's 2 South members was adopted by the "F," which became a member of the clan in customary sense. The respondent's clan, while revising D's clan on April 18, 199, stipulated that "the family members of the D's family members shall be the members of the clan," and recognized the status of the respondent's members of the clan for the E's descendants. Since the respondent changed its substance as a similar organization after the amendment of D's clan on April 18, 199, the respondent was deemed to be a clan separate from the previous clan before the amendment of D's clan. 2) The party of the case, which was subject to quasi-deliberation, was a member of the clan that existed before the amendment of D's clan rules.
However, a quasi-deliberation lawsuit filed by the representative G of the respondent whose substance has been changed to a similar clan (G shall not be the member of the clan before the amendment of the clan as well as the representative of the clan before the amendment of the clan) to seek cancellation of the complaint telephone, and the protocol for filing a lawsuit was revoked.
This is the same as the third party raises an objection that the compromise between others was wrong.
B. In full view of the following facts, the evidence Nos. 1-9 and No. 1-11, which can be recognized by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings, it can be recognized that the respondent had the substance of a clan as an unincorporated association similar to a clan, not a clan from the beginning to its own meaning.
In contrast to this, the evidence submitted by the applicant is not reliable, and the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the fact of the applicant's assertion.
It is true that the respondent was a clan of its own meaning at the time of the establishment of the complaint telephone.