1. The defendant's petition for retrial is dismissed;

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. On April 8, 2010, the Plaintiff’s final text of the judgment subject to a retrial filed a lawsuit against the Defendant clan seeking the cancellation of the registration of change of the indication of the registered titleholder, which was completed in the name of the Defendant clan as the court 2010Kahap2751. On August 13, 2010, this court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff’s language, and it is evident that the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 3, 2010.

2. Determination on the grounds for retrial

A. In order for the representative of a non-corporate association to conduct a procedural act concerning the disposal of an article jointly owned, a resolution of a general meeting of members shall be made pursuant to Article 276(1) of the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance. The act of procedural acts without such resolution constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, where no special authorization necessary for conducting procedural acts is obtained.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da80718 Decided February 10, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 98Da46600 Decided October 22, 199. (b)

The fact that V was present on July 16, 2010 on behalf of the defendant clan and stated that he did not dispute the assertion of the plaintiff's literature on the date of pleading on behalf of the defendant clan is apparent in the record, and that V did not go through a resolution of the general meeting of the defendant clan in relation to the disposal of the real estate of this case in full view of the purport of the whole pleading in the evidence Nos. 28, 29, and 87.

Therefore, there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act because the instant judgment subject to a retrial constitutes a defect in granting authority necessary for the representative to conduct procedural acts.

2. Judgment on the main safety defense of the Plaintiff’s door

A. The plaintiff literature asserts that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful since W, which filed a lawsuit of this case for retrial on October 15, 1997, was registered as the auditor of the defendant clan around October 15, 1997, and was not appointed as auditor at the extraordinary general meeting around 2004, the lawsuit of this case filed by W on behalf of the defendant clan was not filed.

For this, the defendant clan.