1. An agenda item in Paragraph 1 of the attached Table which the defendant holds on November 30, 1982 (No. 15, 1982) at a clan general meeting held by the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a clan that has C 16 years of age D as a joint ancestor.

Among four children of the defendant's small group, Fmph made the joint group of E among the four children of D, Hmph made the joint group of G as the joint group, Jmph made the joint group of I as the joint group, and K as the joint group of K.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s representative M are the Defendant’s senior members of the JP.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, each entry (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings

2. The judgment of this Court

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion that there is no interest in confirmation 1) as to the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits of this case, each resolution of this case was adopted and confirmed the first resolution at the Defendant’s clan general meeting held on October 15, 1992. Since the Defendant’s members did not raise any objection regarding the validity of the first resolution and the status of representative of M for about 30 years, seeking confirmation of the absence and invalidation of each resolution of this case is merely seeking confirmation of the past legal relations or legal relations, and thus there is no interest in confirmation.

B) There is no evidence to prove that the defendant's clan general meeting held on October 15, 1992 ratified the first resolution by the defendant's clan, and the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant's members did not raise any objection as to the validity of the rules of a clan pursuant to the first resolution for a long period and the status of the representative of M pursuant to the second resolution, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's seeking confirmation as to the non-existence or invalidity of each resolution of a case is merely a claim for confirmation of the past legal relations or legal relationship. The defendant's assertion as to the double lawsuit is without merit.