1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is that the plaintiff’s assertion emphasized by this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the assertion, and therefore, it shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff has been able to discuss and express his/her intention after he/she collected a clan member from his/her family village, Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si on October 11, 10 of the sound records during which the drilling was completed. The plaintiff did not notify the general meeting of the clan, but did not notify the plaintiff for convening the general meeting of the clan.

Even if the clan members were gathered on November 28, 2017 according to the above practice, they cannot be viewed as a defect in the resolution on the agenda, such as the special authorization for filing a lawsuit on the land of this case.

In the absence of special circumstances, the general meeting of a clan shall determine the scope of the members of the clan subject to notification for convocation by the clan, and give each person an opportunity to participate in the meeting, debate, and resolution of the general meeting of a clan held without a notification for convocation to some members of the clan, by individually notifying all the members of the clan who are clearly residing in the Republic of Korea and their whereabouts are clear.

However, if the members of a clan regularly meet at a certain place once a year in accordance with the rules or practices of the clan and decide in advance to handle the church affairs of the clan, it shall not be deemed null and void a resolution of the general meeting of the clan on the ground that the notification of convocation or resolution has not been given separately.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu1194, Oct. 13, 1987; 2010Da20235, Aug. 19, 2010). According to each description of the evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the Plaintiff’s clan is present as alleged in the Plaintiff’s clan on Nov. 28, 2017.