1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s lawsuit against the defendant shall be dismissed;

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. The plaintiffs are the members of the Ciplomatic Association (hereinafter referred to as the "instant church"), and the defendant purchased the instant real estate owned by the collective ownership of the instant church and completed the registration of ownership transfer stated in the purport of the claim.

2. The defendant's main defense and judgment

A. The defendant's main lawsuit of this case is that the plaintiffs, who are the members of the church of this case, seek the return of the properties jointly owned by the church of this case against the defendant, and the lawsuit concerning collective ownership property can only be filed in the form of indispensable co-litigation, either by a resolution of the general members' meeting under the name of the non-corporate group, or by the whole members as the parties to it, and the same applies to the case where

Therefore, although all the members of the church of this case, which is a non-corporate association, should be the parties, only some of the plaintiffs among the members of the church of this case, filed the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

B. Article 276(1) of the Civil Act provides that “the management and disposition of a general meeting shall be made by a resolution of a general meeting of members” and Article 276(2) of the same Act provides that “each member may use and make profits from collective ownership in accordance with its articles of incorporation or any other rules,” and does not provide the same provision as the proviso of Article 265 of the Civil Act or the proviso of Article 272 of the Civil Act that any act of preservation may be performed by each member as in the case of joint ownership or joint ownership. This is a natural consequence from the fact that collective ownership, which is the form of ownership of an association which is not a juristic person, is strong compared to the joint ownership or joint ownership, and the ownership of collective property is not recognized by its members. Therefore, a lawsuit concerning collective ownership can only be filed in the form of essential co-litigation in its name by an association which is not a juristic person, or all its members are involved, and such legal doctrine is a preservation