1. The part of the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a resolution of permanent expulsion against C, D, E, and F shall be dismissed.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The defendant clan does not have a provision on the permanent expulsion of the clan members and does not permanently dismiss the clan members due to the nature of the clan. In addition, on January 13, 2007, the general assembly of the clan made a resolution to permanently remove the plaintiff, etc. from the clan members (hereinafter “the resolution of expulsion of this case”), and did not notify the plaintiff, etc. of the details of the disciplinary action while making the resolution of expulsion.

Therefore, the resolution of expulsion of this case is null and void due to such substantive and procedural defects.

B. In addition, from 1983 to 2007, the plaintiff transferred to the president of the defendant clan, and the defendant clan from 2007 to 2007 caused mental damage to the plaintiff by preventing the plaintiff from participating in the plaintiff through the resolution of the expulsion of this case.

Therefore, the defendant clan is obligated to pay 5 million won as consolation money for mental damage to the plaintiff and to take measures to restore the reputation of the plaintiff et al.

2. Of the instant lawsuits, the claim for confirmation of the legitimacy of the part seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of expulsion against C, D, E, and F is not necessarily limited to the legal relationship between the parties, but also the legal relationship between one of the parties and a third party or between third parties. However, for the sake that there is a benefit of confirmation of the legal relationship, the legal relationship must be caused by the risk or deficiency existing in the rights or legal status of the complainer according to the legal relationship, and it is necessary to immediately confirm the legal relationship by the confirmation judgment aimed at the confirmation of the legal relationship in order to eliminate the risk or omission, and it shall be the most effective and appropriate means.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da96963, 96970, Feb. 25, 2010). In addition, even if Defendant clan made a resolution to permanently dismiss C, D, E, and F, as alleged by the Plaintiff, even if it had been decided by the Plaintiff to permanently dismiss the Defendant’s members.