1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. The Plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) asserts that the amended rules of the Gun Civil Association, as of November 26, 201, were null and void because the Defendant, the chairman of the Gun Civil Association, at the time of the amendment, arbitrarily amended the rules without complying with the procedures prescribed in Article 5 of the Regulations of the Gun Civil Association Steering Committee, and thus, the previous rules of the Gun Civil Association are valid, and the Plaintiff and the designated parties, as members of the Gun Civil Association, seek confirmation of the validity of the amended rules of the Gun Civil Association prior to the amendment.

2. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

A. The subject of a suit for confirmation must be against the existence of a specific right or legal relationship. Therefore, it cannot be claimed as a lawsuit for confirmation that a general, abstract statute, or statute itself has the validity.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da38271, Sept. 8, 2011). Prior to the amendment asserted by the Plaintiff as null and void, prior to the amendment, the rules governing the legal relations of the organization, activities, etc. of the Gun Council, a non-corporate body, are municipal ordinances and rules binding on the organization and members of the Gun Council.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s seeking confirmation of the validity of the rules of association and the rules of association before the amendment is ultimately a matter of general and abstract norms, and does not relate to any specific rights of the Plaintiff and the designated parties or any legal relationship between them and the Defendant, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. In addition, the purport of the instant lawsuit is to seek confirmation of invalidity of the “Military Association’s resolution to amend its rules on November 26, 201,” and even if it is assumed that the amendment through the said resolution led to a change in specific rights or legal relations to the Plaintiff and the designated parties, a person who disputes the validity of the resolution of an organization which is a non-corporate group is not against the organization, but against an individual who is or was the representative of the organization.