The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

The request for intervention by the supplementary intervenor shall be dismissed.

(b) Costs of lawsuit;

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of the instant claim did not constitute “F” or “a thief,” thereby causing a serious damage to Ginst, thereby selling Ginst real estate to H; and (b) the representative C among E-types must return the money.

B. Article 276(1) of the Civil Act provides that "the management and disposition of a general meeting shall be made by a resolution of a general meeting of members" and Article 276(2) does not provide for the same provision as the proviso of Article 265 or the proviso of Article 272 of the Civil Act that "any member may use or make a profit from collective ownership in accordance with the articles of incorporation or any other rules," and that any act of preservation, like in the case of joint ownership or joint ownership, may be done by each member. This is naturally attributable to the fact that collective ownership, the form of ownership of an association which is not a juristic person, is more collective ownership than that of joint ownership or joint ownership, and that the collective ownership of the members is not recognized. Thus, a lawsuit concerning collective property can only be conducted in the form of an essential co-litigation in its name by an association which is not a juristic person or by all the members of the association, and even if such member of the association was a representative of the association or a general meeting of members,

Even if the lawsuit cannot be a party to the lawsuit, and this legal principle is the same to the case where the lawsuit is brought as a preservation act of collective ownership property.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Da44971 Decided September 15, 2005).

Judgment

Examining the Plaintiff’s assertion in light of the relevant legal principles, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit on the GJ property with the Plaintiff’s individual, and the Plaintiff cannot be a party to the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

Furthermore, according to the cause of the plaintiff's claim, a person who is infinite or stolen, or his/her property.