A. The defendant is a clan with a unique meaning formed for the purpose of protecting the graves of the clan and managing the properties of the clans with descendants who jointly set up C25 years of age D as their members, and the plaintiff is a member of the defendant's clan.

B. On February 27, 2011, the Defendant held an extraordinary general meeting in the F located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “Special General meeting in the year 201”) and resolved as shown in the attached Table 1 in the presence of 13 members of the religious community.

C. Since then, G, who was appointed as the president according to the above resolution, issued a notification of convening a clan general meeting to the members of the defendant for the resolution on the agenda, such as the revision of the rules of the clan and the management of the clan property, etc. Accordingly, on May 25, 2013, the defendant held an extraordinary general meeting at the above F on May 25, 2013 (hereinafter “special general meeting at 2013”) and made a resolution as shown in the attached Table 2 while the 17 members of the clan were present.

On the other hand, H around March 2014, notified the defendant's members of convening an extraordinary general meeting for resolution on the case of the representative and the appointment of executive officers of the clan, the case of approving the rules of the clan, and the management and disposal of the clan properties. Accordingly, on March 23, 2014, the defendant is called "the extraordinary general meeting of 2014" from the above F to the above F.

(A) At the meeting of 19 members, the resolution was made in the same manner as in Appendix 3 in the presence of 19 members. [Recognizing facts] A, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 9, and 11 (if any, the number is included) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff: (a) whether the part of the claim regarding each extraordinary meeting in 2011 and 2013 was lawful; (b) all the Defendant’s respective extraordinary meetings in 201 and 2013 did not carry out the convocation notification procedure by a legitimate convening authority; (c) the method of resolution is against the final rules; and (d) the details of the resolution are not consistent with the factual basis; (c) thus, the said resolution at each of the said extraordinary meetings is deemed null and void due to serious defects; and (d

2.3.