소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is the same as that of Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Each land of this case, which is the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, is originally owned by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was given a title trust to G, who is a member of the Plaintiff clan, and was under the name of G. Since the Plaintiff terminated the title trust agreement with respect to the Defendant, who is the heir of G, by serving a copy of the complaint of this case, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership for each land, as stated in the separate sheet, divided from each land of this case.
3. The defendant elected the representative of AF before the merits of the case, and the resolution of the general meeting held on December 9, 2012 by the plaintiff who delegated the right to perform the lawsuit of this case to AF was not a notification for convening the general meeting of December 9, 2012, and thus there is any defect in the convocation procedure. The resolution of the general meeting held on February 28, 2016, which ratified the resolution of the general meeting held on December 9, 2012, was made without any restriction on the exercise of the power of submitting the power of attorney. The approval of the power of attorney was made without the consent of the majority of the members present at the meeting who are the quorum when the power of attorney is recognized as the full-time members, and thus, it is not effective because the resolution of the general meeting held on August 21, 2016, which ratified the special meeting held on February 28, 2016, is called in the name of AG and 54 persons who are not the permanent members.
Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it is filed by AF, not a legitimate representative.
4. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits
A. According to the purport of Gap’s evidence Nos. 18, 19, 31, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 15 and the entire pleadings as to the validity of the resolution of the general assembly on December 9, 2012, according to the Plaintiff’s overall purport.