1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by B.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following additional determinations. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff asserts to the effect that, if the plaintiff is not a clan with its own meaning, the plaintiff has the ability to become a party as an organization similar to a clan.

On the other hand, the issue of party capacity is a matter of ex officio investigation by the court, and the court must investigate ex officio the facts which are the premise for the party capacity judgment without being bound by the parties' arguments. However, in determining the party capacity based on these facts, if an organization with such meaning as the purpose, organization, and members of an organization with the elements to be defined as a social entity is lost, the party capacity in the lawsuit is satisfied. If a lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed, it is sufficient to recognize the party capacity as the substance of an organization entirely different from the parties' arguments, and it is not permissible to recognize the party capacity as the result of the party's change (Supreme Court Decision 98Da5072 delivered on April 13, 199). On the other hand, a similar clan organization is a private organization established through an artificial organization of a clan, and it is not a party's own meaning or nature that is different from that of the parties to the clan, and it is not allowed to change the party's own meaning or nature.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da12810 Decided May 26, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 99Da14228 Decided August 24, 199, etc.). In addition, whether a court is a member of the same clan as the parties initially asserted, or not.