1. The plaintiff

A. As to the 2,380 square meters of forest land in Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, the Defendants listed in the attached Table 2 list are the same list.

1. The assertion and its judgment

A. According to the purport of the entirety of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence 3-1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 as to this safety defense, it can be seen that the plaintiff's question is a clan similar organization composed of male descendants among the AE descendants of the Sinsan-si, Sinsan-si.

In addition, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 (including paper numbers), in relation to the filing of the lawsuit in this case, the plaintiff's door shows the following facts: (a) the representative of the AF in the plaintiff's door around September 13, 2015 at AH restaurant located in Gyeongsan-si, Gyeongsan-si; (b) the ratification of the general meeting bill of March 22, 2015 at around September 13, 2015; (c) the case of a trust land return lawsuit in the door; (d) the case of criminal complaint; and (e) the case of the amendment of the rules, the plaintiff's door published it to the AI on September 3, 2015; and (e) sent mail and text messages, etc. to the plaintiff's door.

In addition, as a result, AJ, who is the co-resident of the above special meeting, was the Speaker pro tempore pro tempore, and held the door-to-door general meeting on March 22, 2015, has resolved to confirm the resolution, etc. of the Plaintiff-to-door General Meeting held on March 22, 2015 and to delegate AF, who is the door-to-door representative, to proceed with land return litigation, etc.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s literature calls for an extraordinary general meeting according to lawful procedures and made the above-mentioned resolution, the institution of the instant lawsuit in the Plaintiff’s literature is legitimate.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that “Z forest is originally owned by the Plaintiff’s door and entrusted the name of Non-Party AK and Non-Party AL, which is the cause of the Plaintiff’s door, to the Non-Party AK and Non-Party BL,” and that the Plaintiff’s door sent a duplicate of the instant complaint to the Defendants indicated in the separate sheet No. 2, the heir of the said AK and AL, expressed his/her intention to terminate the title trust and seek implementation of the registration procedure for ownership transfer for shares listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

Domins, Gap evidence 1, 2-1, .