1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part regarding Defendant ER, FB, FC, and FD shall be revoked.

Defendant 1, FB, and FC are attached Form 2.

1. Defendant 42-51 asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since the Plaintiff did not undergo a legitimate general assembly resolution before filing the instant lawsuit.

This case is to seek implementation of the procedure for registration of ownership transfer on the ground of termination of title trust with respect to the land of the case Nos. 1 and 2, which belongs to the collective ownership of Plaintiff non-corporate group, and constitutes the act of preserving collective ownership.

On the other hand, the provisions of Article 265 of the Civil Act concerning the preservation of property jointly owned cannot be applied to the preservation of property, and the provisions of Articles of incorporation, etc. shall not be applied to the preservation of property through a resolution of a general meeting of members pursuant to Article 276 (1)

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da28437, Oct. 25, 1994). According to the respective descriptions of evidence A No. 1-2 and 3, the following facts are recognized.

① Article 9 of the Rules provides for matters requiring a resolution of a general meeting.

However, unlike “matters concerning the acquisition and disposal of the Plaintiff’s property”, “matters concerning the preservation of Plaintiff’s property” or “matters concerning the management of Plaintiff’s property” are not specified as matters requiring a resolution of the general meeting.

② The Plaintiff’s affiliate has a board of directors comprised of the chairperson, vice-chairperson, secretary general, auditors, and heads of departments. Article 15 subparag. 4 of the Plaintiff’s rules provides that “The board of directors shall convene a meeting and report to the general meeting after deliberation and resolution by the chairperson when a major resolution has occurred before the general meeting.”

③ On September 17, 2008, an executive meeting of the Plaintiff opened on September 17, 2008 passed a resolution to file a lawsuit to change the name of the owner of the land Nos. 1 and 2 in the presence of 16 executives.

In addition, the above-mentioned facts are the fact that the board of directors of the Plaintiff seems to have resolved on matters concerning the lease of the Plaintiff’s property that constitutes the management of collective ownership.