1. The defendant shall give an appraisal to the plaintiff among the first floor of the community hall building of Overcheon-si C and D ground-based redlight slabbro 2.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a community hall building of overcheon City C and D ground sponsing the second floor of the community hall building (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Defendant, while promoting the redevelopment project of the Ilcheon-si E in 2007, obtained consent to use the office of this case from F on board 31 square meters in part 2 in the ship (hereinafter “the office of this case”) which connects each point of the attached Table 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 8 among the buildings of this case among the buildings of this case, and possessed the office of this case from around that time until the closing date of the argument of this case.

C. On February 1, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant office should be returned by April 31, 2013.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The gist of the defendant's assertion is a voluntary organization comprised of some residents, and there is no party qualification and litigation capacity, and the lawsuit in this case is unlawful since it was filed without the resolution of the general meeting of village residents.

B. Determination 1) In full view of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 8, and 9, G Village Welfare Council was established around 1979 by consisting of village residents, and registered the preservation of ownership in its name on July 3, 1984. G Village Welfare Council established its articles of association around 1992 and managed the building of this case after it was established, and on April 22, 2003, it can be recognized that the name was changed as of April 22, 2003. Accordingly, according to each of the above evidence, Article 19 of the plaintiff's articles of association provides that "the resolution by a majority of the number of members present", and the plaintiff may hold a general meeting on December 6, 2013 to recognize the facts of this case with the consent of the majority of forty-three present members present. Thus, the plaintiff raised a resolution to the general meeting of this case.