1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Defendant.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the 11th, the 11th, the 11th, and the 5th, of the judgment of the court of first instance as “P”; and (b) the Defendant, except for an additional determination as to the emphasizing and the incidental assertion as prescribed in paragraph (2), is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) thus, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s act of disposing of the instant shares in the land allotted by the recompense for development outlay transferred to E is null and void since it did not undergo a resolution of the members’ general meeting as well as a resolution of the board of representatives under Article 26 subparag. 8 of the former Land Readjustment Projects Act, which is a mandatory provision, and the change of the name of the owner made in the name

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the disposal act of the judgment E was not subject to the resolution of the general assembly or the board of representatives is admissible as evidence, Q Q’s witness of this court.

However, Q testified that "I am more likely to pass a resolution, rather than passing a resolution, and the president of the partnership, it would have been the end of the meeting, or that it would have been the same as that of the union." However, Q appears to have been in a hostile relation with Q as opposed to the union's disposition at the time of the board of representatives, and even according to Q's testimony, it is difficult to exclude the possibility that Q's act of disposal against E was rejected by the board of representatives at the same place or at the same place, and thus, it is difficult to say that Q's testimony alone disposed of the shares in the land secured for recompense of this case without a resolution of the board of representatives.

Rather, according to the fact-finding results of this court's inquiry, it is recognized that the minutes have been prepared with the resolution of the board of representatives on the disposal act at the time, and Article 26 subparagraph 8 of the former Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Project Act.