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.

The summary of the plaintiff's claim is that the defendant B was not appointed as the plaintiff's representative through a legitimate resolution of the general meeting of clans on January 5, 2014, but the defendant B pretended to have been appointed by the plaintiff's general meeting of clans as the plaintiff's representative, and completed the registration of change of the registered titleholder's indication stated in paragraph 1 of the same Article, and the registration of change of the registered titleholder's indication was completed at will, and ② the registration of establishment of the root and superficies creation stated in paragraph

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to cancel the registration of change of the indication of the registered titleholder stated in paragraph (1) of this Article, and ② Defendant C and D must cancel the registration of establishment of mortgage and the registration of creation of superficies stated in paragraph (2) of this Article, which is invalid.

The defendant's assertion of the parties regarding the legitimacy of the lawsuit is premised on the premise that the Class A, the owner of each land listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) (hereinafter "the real estate of this case"), is the 6-year-old damage of H, the J (hereinafter "6-year-old damage") and the 7-year-old damage K (K is the 'six-year-old clan') a clan that jointly belongs to H's 6-year-old damage of H (hereinafter "six-year-old clan"), and that the E claimed as the representative of the plaintiff is not the representative elected through a legitimate general assembly resolution, but the lawsuit of this case was not subject to the resolution of the general meeting of the clan in order to file a lawsuit concerning the clan property of this case, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and thus the lawsuit of this case is not subject to the resolution of

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant real estate, is the Defendant B, who is the co-owner of H H H I’s four years of age (hereinafter referred to as “four years of age”) and was composed of his descendants (hereinafter referred to as “four years of age”). The Plaintiff demanded that the members of M et al. and 43, who were the members of M et al., convene an extraordinary general meeting around August 2016, as promoters. However, Defendant B refused to convene the general meeting and the said forty-three promoters were the promoters, and was below the extraordinary general meeting on October 8, 2016.