1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff asserts that, as a non-corporate body established on April 27, 2005 pursuant to the special law for the development of traditional markets and shopping districts, the Plaintiff is the possessor of the instant land of this case, who registered the market merchant association with the office of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and obtained permission to occupy and use the land of this case. The Plaintiff asserts that, without title, without occupying the land specified in the purport of the claim, the Plaintiff seeks to transfer the said land to the Defendants who operate

Article 276 (1) of the Civil Act provides that "the management and disposition of property in general 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 a profit from collective ownership in accordance with the articles of association or any other rules." It does not have the same provision as the proviso of Article 265 or the proviso of Article 272 of the Civil Act that preservation act, like in the case of joint ownership or joint ownership, may be done by each member. This is naturally a result from the fact that the ownership form of an association which is not a juristic person, is strong compared to the joint ownership or joint ownership, and the collective ownership of the members' property is not recognized. Thus, a lawsuit about property in collective ownership can be conducted in the name of an association which is not a juristic person, or can be conducted in the form of indispensable co-litigation after a resolution of a general meeting of members or all its members become the representative of the association or even if its

Even if the lawsuit cannot be a party to the lawsuit, and this legal principle is the same to the case where the lawsuit is brought as a preservation act of collective ownership property.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Da44971 Decided September 15, 2005). In light of the above legal principle, the health room for the instant case, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the foregoing, the instant lawsuit is a lawsuit concerning the preservation of collective ownership, and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff had passed a resolution of the general meeting regarding the instant lawsuit.