1. The appeal of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by C.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

1. Determination on this safety defense

A. The key issue is Plaintiff A’s group consisting of D 23 large E as a joint group for the purpose of good faith service.

The plaintiff claims the return of KRW 180,000,000 against the defendant.

The plaintiff is a clan which is an unincorporated association.

A lawsuit filed by an unincorporated association shall be lawful by a person who has a legitimate representative authority.

The lawsuit of this case was filed by C, which is indicated as the representative (chairperson) of the plaintiff.

The issue is whether C can be recognized as a legitimate representative of the Plaintiff clan.

The plaintiff asserts as follows.

The part that there was a defect in the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on December 14, 2014 (hereinafter “the resolution of this case”) which elected C as the representative does not dispute any further.

However, since the resolution of this case was ratified at the extraordinary general meeting of February 28, 2015 and the general meeting of December 13, 2015, which elected C as the representative, the defect of the resolution was cured.

B. Determination 1) In full view of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 9, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) on February 28, 2015, 2015, 29 members affiliated with the plaintiff, including C, at the F cafeteria located in Asan-si, approved the resolution of this case; (b) on the premise that C is the president, G and H are auditors, and the debtor I are appointed as general secretary. However, on the sole basis of Gap evidence No. 12, it is insufficient to recognize that the above resolution was not made at the plaintiff's general meeting, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above resolution was made through the individual convocation notice by the convening authority with respect to all of the notified family members who can be notified, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the above resolution was valid. Accordingly, according to each entry in Gap 2, 7, and 10 evidence, it cannot be deemed that the legitimate ratification of the resolution of this case was made by the above general meeting.