1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff on March 27, 2015.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff is a clan consisting of descendants who have been dissolved from F made up of D5 descendants by the Jung-si Group E and make up for the 13th grandchildren G as a joint ancestor.

The defendant has managed the plaintiff's property as the chairperson, and on February 19, 2006, the defendant continued to manage the plaintiff's property even after the change from the defendant to H.

B. Around February 2007, the Plaintiff: “The Defendant sold four parcels of land, such as Ulsan-gu I owned by the Plaintiff, to KRW 500 million; however, KRW 350 million out of the purchase price, deposited to the Plaintiff clan; and the remainder KRW 150 million, while the Defendant kept the Plaintiff’s clan’s funds, the Plaintiff paid the capital gains tax to the Defendant as the above custody money if the capital gains tax is imposed on the Plaintiff’s clan.”

On July 8, 2011, the Defendant sold the above land owned by the Plaintiff to J, and around that time, there was a disposition imposing capital gains tax on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff paid KRW 71,637,610 as the Defendant did not pay it.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 71,637,610 as damages for nonperformance and damages for delay.

C. Meanwhile, on January 16, 2010, the Plaintiff lent KRW 5,000,000 to the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 5,000,000 and damages for delay.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. Since the Plaintiff’s resolution to appoint the Defendant’s main defense C as the representative of the Plaintiff’s main defense at the general assembly of November 4, 2012, and the Plaintiff’s resolution to confirm and maintain the instant lawsuit brought by C, the general assembly of April 27, 2014, and the general assembly of December 14, 2014, all of which were significant defects in the convocation procedure, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it does not meet the requirements for litigation.

B. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to supplement the procedural defects of the Plaintiff’s general assembly as of November 4, 2012 and the general assembly as of April 27, 2014.