1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Dong-gu Gwangju Metropolitan City M Forest (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”) was divided into N Forest, O Forest, and P Forest. The said O Forest was divided into 215 square meters before K, and the said P Forest was converted into 793 square meters before L.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant land” is added to the sum of 215 square meters and 793 square meters prior to K.

In the land cadastre of this case, net Q is entered as the owner.

C. The net Q was a member of the Plaintiff, and the Defendants succeeded to the net Q as shown in the separate sheet.

On April 24, 2016, the Plaintiff held an extraordinary general meeting and terminated the title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the net Q with respect to the instant land, and resolved to file a lawsuit against the deceased Q’s inheritors claiming the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure on the instant land due to the termination of the said title trust.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 11, 26 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. If the Plaintiff, a non-corporate body of the Defendant’s assertion, intends to file a lawsuit, it shall undergo a resolution at a general meeting. The general meeting held by the Plaintiff in connection with the filing of the lawsuit in this case, is null and void since it omitted a notice

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. In full view of the purport of evidence evidence and the entire arguments Nos. 20, 23, and 26 of the judgment of the court below, it is recognized that the plaintiff individually notified to the clan members who could have been notified prior to holding the extraordinary general meeting as of April 24, 2016, and no other circumstance exists to deem the above resolution of the extraordinary general meeting null and void.

Therefore, even if each extraordinary general meeting held on May 10, 2015 and October 3, 2015, held by the Plaintiff prior to holding the extraordinary general meeting of April 24, 2016, was null and void in violation of the convocation procedure, the defect of the instant lawsuit was cured by a resolution of the extraordinary general meeting of April 24, 2016.