손해배상(기)
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
With respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for damages caused by tort against the Defendants, which are the Plaintiff’s clans, the Defendants did not go through a legitimate general assembly resolution to file the instant lawsuit, and even if they had gone through a lawful general assembly resolution, there were defects in failing to give notice to the members of the religious clans, including the Defendants, so the instant lawsuit is deemed unlawful.
In the absence of special circumstances, the general meeting of a clan shall determine the scope of the members of the clan subject to notification for convocation by the clan, and give each person an opportunity to participate in the meeting, debate, and resolution of the general meeting of a clan held without a notification for convocation to some members of the clan, by individually notifying all the members of the clan who are clearly residing in the Republic of Korea and their whereabouts are clear.
However, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 5, the plaintiff held a general meeting on November 10, 2013 and made a resolution that "the plaintiff made a unanimous decision on the claim for damages against the defendant B at the Japanese clan level" while 21 members of the clan attend the general meeting, and there is no resolution on the claim for damages against the defendants other than the defendant B. However, the plaintiff did not submit any evidence as to the fact that the plaintiff notified the convocation of the general meeting. However, the defendants did not attend the meeting even though they did not know of the date of holding the general meeting each year.
Now, Defendant B did not return the register of the clan members and did not call a notice to some clan members, but did not return it.
[Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants were automatically removed from the Plaintiff’s office on three consecutive occasions. However, the articles of incorporation (Evidence A6) submitted by the Plaintiff was enacted in January 2005, and was enacted in January 2008 in 2008 (Evidence A3).