1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The appeal costs are assessed against G which is represented by the Plaintiff’s representative.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where G, expressed as the representative of the plaintiff, added the judgment as to the newly asserted part by this court, which is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Determination of the attached articles

A. Even if G’s assertion expressed by the Plaintiff as the representative, even if it is invalid due to the defect in each resolution of the extraordinary general meeting as of January 9, 2016 and the extraordinary general meeting as of July 8, 2017, G elected by the chairman of the emergency countermeasure committee as of November 26, 2015 is the legitimate representative of the Plaintiff clan, and the lawsuit of this case brought by G constitutes the act of preserving the property of the clan, it is lawful without a resolution of the clan general meeting.

B. First of all, on November 26, 2015, some members of the Plaintiff were elected G as the chairperson of the emergency countermeasure committee in the place where some members gather and gather the religious services, as seen earlier, but the chairperson of the emergency countermeasure committee elected as above cannot be deemed as the legitimate representative of the Plaintiff clan.

Next, the provisions of Article 265 of the Civil Act concerning the preservation of property jointly owned cannot be applied to the preservation of property jointly owned. Barring special circumstances, a resolution of a general meeting of members pursuant to Article 276(1) of the Civil Act shall be passed. Thus, a clan which is an association which is not a juristic person shall also undergo a resolution of the general meeting of members of the clan,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da83650, Feb. 11, 2010). Accordingly, G’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed the lawsuit of this case, is justifiable, and all of the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.