1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

(a) In filing a lawsuit concerning property jointly owned by a non-corporate group, the resolution of a general meeting of members shall be passed unless there are special circumstances, such as that there are other provisions in the articles of incorporation, and the lawsuit filed by a non-corporate group in its name without a resolution of such general meeting of members is unlawful as the requirements for such

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da97044, Jul. 28, 2011). Meanwhile, in holding a clan, barring special circumstances, each person shall be given an opportunity to participate in the meeting, discussion, and resolution by setting the scope of the members of the clan subject to notification for convening a clan, etc., and giving individual notification individually to all members of the clans who are able to be notified because their whereabouts are clearly residing in the Republic of Korea,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da83650 Decided February 11, 2010, etc.). B.

On November 10, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that 45 members of the clan (51 and 69 members of the clan) who attended a clan meeting held in Seocheon-si E and passed a resolution with the consent of all members present about the filing of the instant clans, and that the general meeting of the clans held in the same place as of December 21, 2014 after the first judgment was pronounced, 120 members of the clans (51 and 69 members of the clans) participated in and passed a resolution on the filing of the instant clans.

C. According to the above legal principles, in holding a clan general meeting, the scope of the clan members who are subject to notification for convening a clan general meeting shall first be determined by the family clan, etc., and the plaintiff himself/herself argues that 81 members (the general meeting of November 10, 2013) and 120 members (the general meeting of December 21, 2014) regarding the number of the clan members are not fixed (the evidence No. 222) (the evidence No. 22 includes 23 members), and the statement of the evidence No. 21 cannot be deemed to have taken the procedure for the plaintiff to determine the scope of the clan members by the family clan's report, etc. before the resolution of November 10, 2013 and the resolution of December 21, 2014.

Ultimately, the resolution of November 10, 2013 and December 21, 2014.