1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following determination as to the assertion added by the defendant in the court of first instance.

2. Additional determination

A. According to the defendant’s arguments and practice, members, such as I and R, residing in U U, hold an ordinary general meeting on November 11, 2019 ( October 15, 2019), and ratified the resolution of the special general meeting on April 1, 2018, which elected C as the defendant’s representative, and C is a legitimate representative of the defendant.

B. Judgment 1) If members of a clan regularly gather at a certain place on a certain day each year in accordance with the rules and practices of the clan and manage the clan's history, it is not necessary to separately convene a clan meeting (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da27703, Sept. 30, 1994; 2005Da36298, Dec. 8, 2005). The ordinary meeting day set forth in the defendant's clan (Ga evidence 1) is set up in January 3 or January 3 of each year, and the above clan was set up in the form at the time of applying for registration number to register the real estate in the defendant's name. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the general meeting has been held in accordance with the above clan, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise, it cannot be viewed that the defendant has to make a decision in accordance with the procedures set out in the above clan.

3) Next, according to the following circumstances acknowledged by the Defendant’s assertion that the practice of holding an ordinary general meeting on November 11, 2019 (whether it is possible to recognize the practice of holding an ordinary general meeting on the deceased E’s grave of October 15, 2019, and the purport of each of the statements and arguments as stated in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 12 through 17, and No. 1, 16, 33, 42 through 47, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant Jong-won had a practice of holding an ordinary general meeting on the deceased E’s grave of October 15, 201 as alleged by the Defendant.

(1) The court is pronounced on October 9, 2007.