1. On November 20, 2019, the Plaintiff D’s lawsuit against Defendant A Village Council was concluded as the withdrawal of the lawsuit.

2. Plaintiffs E, F, G, H, I, J.

1. Declaration of termination of a lawsuit against the Plaintiff D’s Defendant Village Association

A. According to the record of recognition, it is recognized that the representative of the Defendant Village Association was Plaintiff D, Plaintiff D was served with the instant complaint as the representative of the Defendant Village Association on August 20, 2019, and Plaintiff D withdrawn the lawsuit against the Defendant Village Association on November 20, 2019.

B. In the litigation concerning the matters in conflict of interest between a non-corporate company and its representative, there is no representative authority against the above representative. Thus, an interested party may apply for the appointment of a special representative pursuant to Articles 64 and 62 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the special representative appointed pursuant thereto shall represent the non-corporate company, unless there is a person who represents the non-corporate company on behalf of the above representative.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da25208 delivered on March 10, 1992, etc.). C.

Judgment

In light of the relevant legal principles, since the interests of the plaintiff D and the defendant village conference over this part of the lawsuit are in conflict with the interests of the plaintiff D and the defendant village conference, there is no representative authority of the defendant village conference on this part

I would like to say.

Therefore, the delivery of the complaint on this part is inappropriate, and this part of the suit was terminated on November 20, 2019 by Plaintiff D’s withdrawal of the suit.

2. Judgment on the lawfulness of the lawsuit

A. The supplementary intervenor of the defendant village conference asserts that the supplementary intervenor of the defendant village council asserts the gist of the main defense as follows:

① Plaintiff S, AB, AC, and AI did not delegate to the Plaintiffs’ legal representative regarding the filing of the instant lawsuit.

② Plaintiff F, G, I, J, K, M, M, N, Q, R, U, V, X, AB, AD, AD, and AH are not the head of the Defendant Village Association, but the Plaintiff E, H, P, P, P, T, W, Z, Z, Z, AF, and AG does not reside in a house or on three banks within the Defendant Village Association. As such, the said Plaintiffs are not members of the Defendant Village Association.

B. Determination 1) According to Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the plaintiff S, AB, AC, and AI shall generate wind power around July 2019.