1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The litigation costs are assessed against C who is represented by the plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff is a natural clan that has created E as a joint ancestor.

B. On September 20, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant, who is the wife of the net F, who was the Plaintiff’s general manager, to purchase the amount of KRW 32.76 million from the Defendant of Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. The Plaintiff paid 30 million won to the Defendant on September 21, 2001, and 2760,000 won on November 28, 2001, respectively, and paid all the sales amount stipulated in the above sales contract. D.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the instant land to the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense of safety

A. The defendant's main reason for the safety of the defendant is that the plaintiff is not an organization that has no substance and therefore the lawsuit of this case must be dismissed in its illegality. The unique meaning of the clan does not require a special organization act as a clan group in the custom of natural development for the purpose of protecting the graves of the common ancestor, conducting religious services, and promoting friendship among the members of the clan, or require a clan code. However, the defendant's main reason for the safety of the defendant is that the clan is a naturally occurring group, and if the descendants of the common ancestor exist, it does not automatically establish the clan, but can recognize the unique meaning of the clan only after the clan has been equipped with an organization to the extent represented by the representative elected in accordance with the rules and customs of the clan and continuously performed by the members for the above purpose.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da16525 delivered on August 27, 1991). We examine whether the Plaintiff has the substance as a clan.

The entries of Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 7 through 9, and 12 through 14 are not enough to recognize that the plaintiff has organized Eul as a joint group and has continued to engage in continuous activities, and it may be recognized differently.