1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a naturally created clan comprised of adults aged 20 years or older among the descendants of Sc 25 years old descendants, and the plaintiffs are the defendant's clan members.

B. U convened a general meeting of the Defendant on the agenda of the meeting “the progress and accounting report, the election of officers, the disposition and distribution of V forest land in Ansan, and other matters,” and on November 27, 2015, the Defendant held a clan general meeting and resolved on the said agenda.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant resolution”). [Grounds for recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 10, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiffs did not hold a general meeting on February 6, 2013 and appointed Plaintiff Q as the Defendant’s representative and revised the Articles of Incorporation.

In addition, the defendant held an extraordinary general meeting on October 4, 2015 and appointed Q as the representative of the defendant's clan in Q. The defendant, despite the fact that the defendant was legitimate representative, called U, Q, called "the defendant's representative", convened the defendant's general meeting on November 27, 2015, and resolved on "the election of officers, the disposition of V forest land, etc.".

Therefore, the resolution of the general meeting of this case is null and void when it was held by a non-exclusive person.

B. The convening of the decision-making general meeting shall be convened by the representative, and the general meeting of the clan convened by the members of the clan who are not the representative shall not be effective as a resolution convened by the general meeting of the clan because it is inappropriate to convene it

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Du2609 Decided May 27, 2010, etc.). In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s lawful representative is U, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that Plaintiff Q is the Defendant’s representative as alleged by the Plaintiffs, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

1 U shall be the defendant, who was held on May 10, 1998.