1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff, as the Republic of Korea’s origin from the North Cheong-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, who was established by South Korea in the Korean War 6.25, sought damages against the Defendant, asserting that “the Defendant, from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2009, embezzled while managing the Plaintiff’s funds as the chairperson of the Plaintiff.”

As to this, the Defendant’s lawsuit is an act of preserving the Plaintiff’s collective property, a non-corporate group, and thus requires a resolution at a general meeting of members. The Defendant’s defense to the effect that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as the Plaintiff’s general meeting does not have a valid resolution

On March 27, 2017, the Plaintiff held an extraordinary general meeting, the agenda of which is the filing of the instant lawsuit on March 27, 2017, and 69 of the registered members (direct 42 of the attendance, 27 of the appointment) is the Defendant’s defense of this case, and hereinafter referred to as the “resolution of March 27, 2017,” which is the “Resolution of March 27, 2017.”

The lawsuit in this case is lawful. 2. The provisions of Article 265 of the Civil Act concerning the preservation of jointly owned property cannot be applied to the preservation of jointly owned property. Barring special circumstances, a resolution of the general meeting of members is required pursuant to Article 276(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, in a case where an association which is not a juristic person files a lawsuit as an act of preserving jointly owned property, a resolution of the general meeting of members should be passed unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da83650, Feb. 11, 2010). The health class and evidence No. 6 (each of the statements included in the serial number) regarding the qualification of the plaintiff is considered to be the whole pleadings, and the first rule in force as to the qualification of the plaintiff is deemed to be the first rule before amendment as of July 31, 2004. The Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Da29765 decided Jul. 31, 2004. 2004.