2. Litigation costs are the Plaintiff’s representative.

In a case where the clan is a party to the clan, whether the representative of the clan has legitimate authority to represent the clan is subject to ex officio investigation by the court. The representative of the clan shall be appointed according to the rules or practices of the clan, and if not, the head of the clan or the head of the door shall convene and elect adult or older persons among the members of the clan, and if there is no rules or practices regarding the appointment of the clan, he shall notify the members of the existing clan who have become the head of the clan or the head of the door and reside in the country and shall convene the general meeting of the clan and appoint the representative of the clan at the meeting (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da5699, Mar. 12, 1996; 2009Da26596, Dec. 9, 2010); the general meeting of the clan shall have no effect on all the members of the clan by failing to meet the notification for convening the general meeting of the clan and giving them individually to all the members of the clan, and shall not individually participate in the resolution of the clan.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da34982 Decided September 6, 2007, etc.). The plaintiff argues that the plaintiff's representative B is the representative elected by the open clan general meeting in October 2003 first, and even if the representative is not recognized by the resolution of the clan general meeting at that time, since Eul was ratified by the resolution of the clan general meeting on May 14, 2017, which was held after the filing of the lawsuit in this case, since Eul was held as a legitimate representative of the plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the resolution of the plaintiff's clan general meeting in October 2003.