1. The quasi-examination of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of quasi-examination shall be borne by C; and

purport, purport, and.

1. Preparation of protocol of conciliation subject to quasi-examination;

A. On March 15, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration against the Defendant as the court 2006Kadan3938.

B. On August 30, 2006, E, the representative of the plaintiff and the defendant, respectively, was present on the date of pleading on August 30, 2006 of the above case, and a compromise with the same content as the Attached Provisions (hereinafter “Settlement in this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul evidence No. 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's defense of this case is not legitimate representative authority to represent the defendant because of the defect in the decision of the defendant's representative, and the plaintiff's defense of this case was not legitimate general assembly resolution as to the filing of a lawsuit for quasi-deliberation of this case.

In full view of the statement and the purport of the argument in Gap's evidence No. 1, the defendant is a clan of F F's 11 years of age as a joint ancestor; C is elected as the representative of the defendant's extraordinary general meeting on November 26, 201; the defendant did not give notice to female clan members while holding the above extraordinary general meeting; the plaintiff et al. filed an application for a provisional disposition of suspending the performance of his duties against C by this court No. 2015Kahap508 against the plaintiff et al.; and in this case, on March 15, 2016, the court did not give notice to the female clan members at the time of the above extraordinary general meeting, and thus, on the ground that the resolution of the court selected as the representative of Eul was invalid; and the fact that the acting representative of the defendant was elected by holding an extraordinary general meeting to elect the representative of the defendant on June 4, 2016.

According to the above facts of recognition, C is reasonable to deem that there is no legitimate representative authority to represent the defendant. Thus, the quasi-adjudication of this case is unlawful as a lawsuit filed by a person who has no representative authority.

3. Preliminary decision: Judgment on the grounds for quasi-examination of the Defendant’s assertion.