1. The Plaintiff’s action against Defendant C, D, E, F, and G shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B’s clan (hereinafter “Defendant B’s clan”) is a clan that consists of men and women of 20 years of age or older among his descendants, who are 41 years of age or older, and who are 16 years of age or older as a joint ancestor.

The plaintiff, defendant C, D, E, F, and G are those registered as members of the defendant clan and have been working.

B. The Defendant clan opened an ordinary general meeting on November 26, 2014 and elected Defendant C as the president of the clan.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant resolution of the general assembly”). Defendant C appointed Defendant D, E, and F as the president of the clan and Defendant G as the senior secretary according to the clan rules.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the litigation against Defendant C, D, E, F, and G

A. The legal action for confirmation is recognized only when the defendant is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a confirmation judgment against the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da11747, Oct. 16, 1997). In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the invalidity or non-existence of a representative status of a certain organization, even if the judgment citing the claim is issued, it cannot be fundamentally resolved through dispute between the parties surrounding the representative status, since the judgment citing the claim does not affect the organization, and thus, it is not an organization to which the representative belongs, which is not an organization to which the representative belongs, and thus, it is difficult to recognize the benefit of confirmation as there is no benefit of confirmation immediately.

The above legal principle also applies to cases where the pertinent organization seeks a confirmation judgment against the pertinent organization and sought a confirmation judgment on the existence of status with the representative as the defendant. Supreme Court Decisions 96Da6295 Decided April 12, 1996 and Supreme Court Decision 2010Da30676, 30683 Decided October 28, 2010.