1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The litigation costs are assessed against C who is represented by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a clan that consists of adults among descendants who are members of D and D.

B. On March 29, 2017, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on each of the instant real property owned by the Plaintiff, based on the mortgage contract on March 26, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 5-1 to 4, 6-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) although the plaintiff's assertion is not the plaintiff's representative, the defendant forged documents as if the defendant was the plaintiff's representative and changed the representative of the plaintiff, who is the owner of each real estate of this case, into Gyeonggi-gun E, the main office, and completed the registration of the establishment of the creation of the neighboring real estate of this case on March 29, 2017, without going through a resolution of the plaintiff's general assembly or the Religious Council. Since the establishment of the above neighboring real estate becomes null and void, the plaintiff's assertion is seeking implementation of the registration procedure

(2) The Defendant’s defense prior to the merits was unlawful since C, other than the Plaintiff’s representative, filed without going through the Plaintiff’s special authorization procedure.

B. (1) Determination is that a clan which is a non-corporate body's non-corporate body must undergo a resolution of the general meeting in order to file a lawsuit under its name, and the lawsuit brought by the representative of a clan in the name of a clan without a resolution of the general meeting is inappropriate by holding special authorization for filing a lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da64573, Jul. 26, 2007). Meanwhile, the property owned by the clan is the collective ownership of its members, and the provisions of Article 265 of the Civil Act on the preservation of the jointly-owned property cannot be applied to the preservation of the jointly-owned property, barring any special circumstance. Thus, it is not a juristic person, unless the general meeting