1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by E indicated as the representative of the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B Village Association (hereinafter “Defendant B Village Association”) is an unincorporated association composed of village residents residing in A, and whose representative is the head of A Village.

B. On April 17, 1974, Defendant B’s Village Association completed registration of preservation of ownership as to the building of 13 square meters of 13 square meters of sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap s

C. The aforesaid building was divided into F forest land in Hongsung-gun and was located in part of G forest land 5,278 square meters, which was divided from the said forest land.

Defendant C and D acquired ownership of 5,278 square meters of forest land in the above G G on August 2, 2018.

(2/3 shares in Defendant C, 1/3 shares in Defendant D). (e)

Defendant C and D paid KRW 20 million to Defendant B Village Association in order to remove the instant building after acquiring the said forest land.

F. Accordingly, on January 2019, Defendant B Village Association had all the houses located in the above building, and Defendant C, etc. removed the above building around the end of January 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendants conspired to remove the instant building owned by the Plaintiff, thereby infringing upon the space where the Plaintiff’s members were living.

In addition, the defendant Eul Village Association stolens the attached movables owned by the plaintiff.

B. Therefore, Defendant B Village Association shall deliver to the Plaintiff the attached movable property, and the Defendants jointly have the obligation to pay the price of KRW 20 million of the above building and KRW 20 million of consolation money and damages for delay.

3. The issue of party capacity to determine the legitimacy requirement of the suit belongs to the matter of ex officio investigation by the court. Thus, the court should conduct ex officio investigation on the facts constituting the premise of determining party capacity without being bound by the party’s argument, but based on this fact.