1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Tong-gu.

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a clan that jointly sets the EF into a common line.

B. On October 13, 2015, the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the Attached List No. 1, which was owned by the Plaintiff, was transferred to Defendant B on October 13, 2015, and the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the Attached List No. 2, the ownership transfer registration was completed in

C. On October 28, 2016, G of the Plaintiff’s religious ground: “Around June 8, 2015, with intent to forge the Plaintiff’s special meeting resolution to sell each real estate listed in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff, forged one copy of the Plaintiff’s special meeting resolution resolution in the name of H, J, K, K, L, L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, and S, and issued one copy of the forged resolution to the Defendants, and subsequently exercised it.” However, the Plaintiff filed a request for a summary order of KRW 5 million with the charge that “A copy of the forged resolution was delivered to the Defendants, and was convicted of a fine of KRW 4 million on August 10, 2016 (Supreme Court Decision 2017Da137588, Nov. 1, 2017). However, the Plaintiff appealed the final appeal, which was dismissed on November 1, 2017 (Supreme Court Decision 2017No27816, Nov. 27, 2017).

On November 19, 2017, the Plaintiff held an extraordinary general meeting (hereinafter referred to as “instant extraordinary general meeting”) and elected D as its representative, and passed a resolution on the agenda of ratification of the previous procedural acts regarding the instant lawsuit filed by D as 54 persons present.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, Eul evidence No. 3 (including evidence with a serial number), the facts which are obvious to this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The instant lawsuit was instituted by D without the authority to represent the Plaintiff. On November 19, 2017, the instant special general meeting of the Plaintiff, which was held on November 19, 2017, violates Article 6 of the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation to be elected at the ordinary meeting, and ② the special general meeting of the instant case is held by the legitimate authority to convene the meeting.