1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff’s representative;

1. Determination on the defendants' main defense

A. The defendants of this case's main safety defense is not the plaintiff's representative but the plaintiff's defense of this case's registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer by the defendants listed in the annexed list of land subject to transfer is invalid. The plaintiff's defense of this case's main safety defense is unlawful as it is filed without a resolution of the clan general meeting.

B. 1) Determination 1) In a case where a non-corporate body is a party, whether a representative has legitimate power of representation or not is subject to the requirements of the court’s ex officio examination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da97044, Jul. 28, 2011); Article 265 of the Civil Act concerning the preservation of collective property cannot be applied to the preservation of collective ownership; barring any special circumstance, a resolution by a general meeting of members pursuant to Article 276(1) of the Civil Act is subject to the resolution of the general meeting of members. Thus, even in a case where a clan, which is a non-corporate body, files a lawsuit for preservation of collective property, it shall undergo a resolution of the general meeting of members of the clan unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da83650, Feb. 11, 2010). Meanwhile, the principle of burden of proof should be applied to the Plaintiff’s right of representation.

2. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against it.