1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The quasi-examination of this case shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of the quasi-examination litigation.

1. On January 18, 2012, with respect to the establishment of the protocol subject to quasi-deliberation, the filing of the lawsuit and the filing of the lawsuit against the Plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, and Plaintiff F, G, and H, the deceased J against the Defendant on April 13, 201, set up a protocol of recognition and recognition of the Defendant’s representative’s attendance at the date of pleading on January 18, 2012, regarding the performance of the registration for cancellation of ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “the case subject to quasi-deliberation”), which was brought against the Defendant on April 13, 2011, including the Plaintiff A, B, C, D, D, E, and deceased on November 29, 201. It is evident that the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the quasi-deliberation of this case, with the exception of the Plaintiff’s total inheritance, and the Plaintiff’s request for continuation of the proceedings under G, the record of which was made clear that the deceased J died on December 29, 2012.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit for quasi-deliberation of this case

A. Although the representative of the defendant's argument regarding the quasi-examination ground is required to obtain special authorization from the clan in order to die, K, who was the representative of the defendant, did not obtain special authorization from the defendant, was present at the date of pleading in the quasi-examination case and accepted the claim.

This constitutes a cause for quasi-examination under Article 451, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, a quasi-examination protocol should be revoked.

B. Prior to the existence of the grounds for quasi-examination alleged by the Defendant as to whether the period for filing a lawsuit is a legitimate lawsuit filed within the period for filing a lawsuit.

According to Articles 64, 52, and 56(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 276(1) of the Civil Act, if the representative of a non-corporate group, such as the defendant, intends to conduct procedural acts concerning the disposal of collective property, he/she shall obtain a special authorization by a resolution of a general meeting of members, barring any special circumstances. Thus, if he/she fails to obtain such special authorization and fails to file a petition in a quasi-corporate group subject to quasi