1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the representative C of the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an unincorporated association with a community assembly and a representative, consisting of residents of Gangwon-do Dho-gun, Gangwon-do.

From January 1, 201 to December 31, 2013, the Defendant held office as a Ri, and used 42,525,000 won remaining after selling E-Ri land owned by the village association without the approval of the Plaintiff’s general meeting, and committed a tort using or disposing of 15 million won in total with the mind of using the village development fund allocated from the Indian Military Office as the village development fund, and thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above money with damages or unjust enrichment.

B. The defendant's assertion is difficult to view it as an unincorporated association and therefore has no legal capacity.

The instant lawsuit was unlawful because it did not go through a legitimate resolution of the general meeting.

2. An association or foundation, other than a legal entity, can be a party to a civil lawsuit if there is a representative or manager, which is not a legal entity, with respect to the existence of a party to the civil lawsuit. Thus, if natural village is a social organization that has its own purpose with its own members and conducts independent activities by appointing a decision-making institution and a representative who is an executive body, it is not a legal entity'

In order to recognize the existence of a natural village as a non-corporate group, first of all, determination of the scope of members of the natural village, the unique nature of the natural village, the existence of representatives and the existence of the rules or customs on its organization and operation should be made, and whether there exists any rules or customs on its organization and operation.

(Supreme Court Decision 2006Da64573 Decided July 26, 2007). According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the community conference held on December 31, 2016 can be recognized.

However, this fact alone is not a scope of plaintiff members and an administrative organization.