1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The grounds alleged by the Defendant clan in this Court while filing a lawsuit for the retrial of this case are not D but D’s temporary clan general assembly of October 28, 2017 (hereinafter “the instant clan”) called the instant clan general assembly.

Since M is appointed through the trial, the lawsuit of this case is lawful, and it does not differ from the contents of the defendant clan raised in the first instance trial with respect to the same issue.

However, even if all the evidence presented to the first instance court and this court are examined, the argument of the defendant clan that M is a legitimate representative is rejected, and the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court that dismissed the lawsuit of this case are justifiable.

B. Accordingly, the reasoning for the statement in this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the argument that the defendant clan emphasizes in this court, the reasoning for the statement in the first instance judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil

2. Additional determination

A. The general meeting of the clan of this case was conducted through legitimate procedures by giving notice to all the members of the clan identified by P who were the members of the clan of this case on the basis of the family register of the defendant clan, etc.

Accordingly, M, appointed through the general meeting of the clan of this case, has the right to legitimately represent the defendant clan.

As such, the appeal of this case filed by M is lawful.

B. The key issue of this case is whether M was a legitimate representative of the defendant clan at the time of filing a lawsuit for retrial of this case, that is, whether M was a legitimate representative of the defendant clan through the general meeting of this case.

However, while the fact that the clan general meeting of this case was called up by P does not conflict between the parties, and the defendant clan claimed to the effect that P had the authority to call as a member of the clan at the time, while the plaintiffs asserted to the effect that P had the authority to call as a member of the clan, the plaintiffs on January 1